Artificial Limb Services: Audit Commission Report

Baroness Lockwood: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress has been made on the Audit Commission's report Fully Equipped in relation to artificial limb services.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, most of the report's recommendations on artificial limb services are for local health authorities and trusts to address. External auditors are now auditing their performance. We would expect the NHS to act on their findings.

Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that not very reassuring reply. Can he give an assurance that the needs of, and service to, the patient will in future be considered to be the prime criteria, rather than the lowest prices that are put forward? Can he further tell the House how he thinks that this might be achieved, given the decrease in expenditure on contracts for the supply of artificial limbs? That expenditure declined from £53.3 million in 1991-92 to £29.3 million in 1994-95. It then rose to £36 million in 1998-99. Does my noble friend agree that this still leaves a tremendous leeway which will need to be made up if the service is to be adequate?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is worth making the point to my noble friend that the Audit Commission reported on a number of services. It recorded that, in relation to artificial limb services, while there were instances of uneven services, as well as some problems, overall a considerable number of favourable comments were received from users of the service. I can assure my noble friend that the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency is working with trusts, the industry and users to improve standards in future service contracts.
	As regards the budget, I think that the total spend is around £65 million a year. The latest figures for 1998-99 show that £36 million reflected the cost of contracts awarded to private sector companies. The remainder of the budget comprised the costs of NHS overheads and NHS staff employed at the centres.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, what action has been taken by the Government since my Starred Question on 21st June on the recommendations made in the report for improving the quality--then described as unacceptable--of the orthotic services; namely, the supply of callipers and artificial appliances? Those are becoming increasingly important for our ageing population.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, as to the various recommendations made by the Audit Commission in its report, which, as the noble Lord has suggested, does not cover only the services referred to in the Question before the House today, we are giving those the most careful consideration. Clearly, we want to ensure that we provide as high quality a service as possible. I can assure the noble Lord that we are discussing ways of making real improvements in the quality of service with the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency. It has a pivotal role to play in specifying the level of quality that is required.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House what options are available to users of the service? Furthermore, what options do they have as regards contributing to the design and range of choice in such matters? Does my noble friend agree that it is the users who are best able to comment on these issues?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend's latter point. If we are to provide high quality and effective services, it is important to involve the users of those services in the specification of such equipment and services. In looking back over the past few years, I would have to say that I do not believe that users have been sufficiently involved in those discussions. Clearly, the NHS plan sets out an overall philosophy for the much stronger involvement of users of services in the future. We shall have to ensure that that relates to artificial limbs as much as it does to other services.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the biggest problems faced by older and disabled people is lack of access to occupational therapists? While massive increases have been announced for the NHS, no such investment has been mentioned for care services. While that situation persists, many of the problems outlined in the report, Fully Equipped, will continue.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to suggest that overall, in relation to services for people affected in the way that she has mentioned, we need to adopt a holistic approach which would embrace both health and local government. Unless we can do that, we shall not be able to provide the kind of readily accessible, high quality service that is required. Clearly, the Government's development of new flexibilities in the way in which health and local government can work together is one important factor in progressing that. I accept also, in relation to occupational therapists, that it is very important, in future workforce planning, to take account of the requirements of local authorities--which are major employers of occupational therapists--as much as those of the NHS. Furthermore, it is worth making the point that the NHS plan makes clear our intention to develop integrated equipment services in the future to try to pull together some of those services.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he has done some very good work on this issue? However, I am afraid that I must differ in my interpretation of the Audit Commission's report. Whereas my noble friend has said that some favourable comments were made--I agree that that was the case--the most riveting comment made by the Audit Commission was that most of the equipment is cheap and shoddy. That is not good enough, either for my noble friend or for the House. Does he agree that overall experience has shown that investment in equipment saves money both for the user and for the taxpayer? What progress has been made since these issues were raised some time ago?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps I may say first that, overall, in relation to artificial limb services, the Audit Commission considered that there had been a more favourable response to those services than was the case for some of the other services that it reviewed. That was the point that I made earlier. However, of course I accept that, in terms of the quality of the equipment and limbs that are purchased by the NHS, we want them to be of the highest possible quality. For example, in relation to silicone cosmesis--which is one issue about which most people are concerned--we have established a group to look at the relevant issues and to advise us on what needs to be commissioned in the future. I can assure noble Lords that, through the work of the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, we shall involve users and we shall ensure that the NHS has available to it high quality equipment to purchase.

Road Haulage: Fuel Costs

Lord Bradshaw: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there is evidence that the financial hardships of which some road hauliers complain are the result of over-capacity in the industry rather than high fuel costs.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the Government have been looking closely in the Road Haulage Forum at the economic and structural factors that affect the road haulage industry. The forum's work has shown that there are many different issues involved, including some over-capacity. Government decisions will continue to be taken in the interests of an efficient and competitive industry.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Perhaps I may press him a little further. Has consideration been given to paying a scrappage allowance, which would allow some hauliers to leave the industry in a dignified manner? Furthermore, does the Minister agree, if that were to be considered, that it would be necessary to ensure that entry standards to the industry were raised, enforcement improved and that foreign lorries paid a fair price for using roads in Britain?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, scrapping old vehicles may be useful if it is linked to higher entry requirements and so on. The Government keep an open mind on all such ideas, including the possibility of issuing a vignette or "Britdisc" for British hauliers, which would mean that there would be a levy on foreign lorries using our roads. Scrappage may be of assistance to the industry, but I must stress that no decision has been taken.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the absences from the Benches opposite indicate that party's lack of a coherent policy on fuel duty? Does he further agree that the figures produced by NERA, the AA and OXERA show that users of the heaviest lorries pay only 70 per cent of their true track and environmental costs? Is my noble friend taking this into account in the forthcoming policy formulation?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the question of recovering some of the costs of the damage done to roads by traffic is constantly under consideration. It is true that British hauliers probably pay more than hauliers in any other country. Although in an ideal world one would like to recover the full costs, in the real world our hauliers are competing against lorry drivers and lorry companies from other countries and we must keep the competitive aspects in mind.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, reverting to the Question, if there is over-capacity in the industry--which I believe there is, although I am not sure--does not that support the case for a reduction in fuel costs?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I cannot follow the noble Lord's logic, though I am sure that there is a point that I am simply missing. It is important to look at the industry's ability to compete. Competing while making reasonable profits raises complex difficulties. They involve matters such as the purchasing power of increasingly consolidating sectors, such as retail and manufacturing, and the fact that in some ways haulage is one of the more vulnerable links in the supply chain. People are therefore forced to work for margins lower than they may prefer. This makes for an efficient economy, but it also makes for some disgruntled employees in the companies working within it. The Road Haulage Forum is working with associations and trade unions and we have made a lot of progress in trying to define "over-capacity". However, there is still no simple answer.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that one of the issues at the time of the fuel crisis was competition from Europe? Can he confirm that the competition from Europe in terms of the actual business taken is very minimal indeed?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, this is again a complex area. If we take what is known as "cabotage"--in other words, foreign lorries coming in and taking business from inside Britain--yes, it is very low. According to the most recent surveys, it is probably only one lorry journey in every thousand. On the other hand, competition in hauling goods across the Channel has become more intense and has affected sections of our lorry fleet. We look to give those sections as much protection as we can.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be unwise to do anything about any existing over-capacity in the road haulage industry while the railway freight industry is in its present condition?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we have had a gratifying increase in the amount of freight carried by rail in recent years. I look forward to that continuing in future, with the billions of pounds-worth of investment that have been set aside for rail freight within the 10-year transport plan. In terms of its relationship with road haulage, the inexorable growth in areas of haulage will still allow rail freight to expand. I do not see them as contradictory sectors; they can increasingly work together. As I said, over-capacity is a complex problem. There can be seasonal periods when there is something of an under-capacity. It also depends partly on regional pressures inside the United Kingdom. The statistics that many noble Lords may have seen refer to a 30 per cent over-capacity. Those figures are some four years old and I would not lay too much store on the methodology that produced them.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, is it correct that foreign trucks are coming into the UK full of very cheap but relatively high sulphur fuel?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, it is true that foreign trucks are coming in with diesel that is not the ultra-low sulphur diesel that we incentivise and prefer. However, I should point out that British trucks can fill up on the Continent--and very cheaply, too, given the strength of the pound--and that they too can bring "dirty diesel" into Britain. I am delighted to say that the use of ultra-low sulphur diesel, which has a target date for implementation across Europe of a few years' time, is almost universal in the United Kingdom because of the co-operation of our oil companies and the discounts given by the Chancellor for ultra-low sulphur diesel.

Privy Counsellors: Confidentiality

Lord Renton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will remind all Members of the Privy Council of their duty to preserve confidentiality after discussing affairs of state confidentially with other Privy Counsellors whatever their party.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as a Privy Counsellor himself, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will be aware that all members of the Privy Council are appointed by Her Majesty the Queen and are bound by the individual oath that they take on becoming members of the Privy Council. I am not aware of any present intention to issue a general reminder of the obligations that the oath imposes.

Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in recent years there has been a tendency on the part of some Privy Counsellors to "go public" instead of obeying the ancient convention of confidentiality?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is thinking of some of the instances, of which all Members of the House will be aware, in which people have perhaps written about experiences which could be said to fall under the terms of their oath. As I said in my original Answer to the noble Lord, it is for individual Privy Counsellors to decide what action is necessary in order to ensure that they meet those obligations.

Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it would be a great pity were we to be deprived of the memoirs of former Prime Ministers? Does she further agree that it would be a great sadness to many of us if we could not have the pleasure of reading the revelations contained in the autobiographies of, for instance, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and Mr Heseltine?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord about the content of the memoirs. But if he is suggesting that someone should automatically take advantage of matters about which they have learnt in the context of their Privy Council membership, that is slightly more controversial.

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, could the noble Baroness move forward on this matter by placing a copy of the Privy Counsellors' oath in the Library?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Privy Counsellors' oath is in the Library.

Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Lord who tabled the Question forgive me for having at first instance read his Question as applying to "discussion of affairs"? I omitted the words "of state" when I first read it.

Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord is not going to be answered. Surely it is in the national interest that Privy Counsellors who are members of different parties should be encouraged to discuss matters of state which are above party, such as defence and foreign affairs? In order for that to be done effectively, it should be done while obeying the convention of confidentiality. Does not the Government accept that opinion?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that the Government accept that opinion. The noble Lord's original Question was about the obligations on individual Privy Counsellors to maintain their oath. The noble Lord may well be aware--although I was not aware before he asked his Question--that apparently it is regarded within the confines of the oath that a meeting of the Privy Council is taking place when only two Privy Counsellors speak to each other. I therefore had to remind the Chief Whip that he and I were both speaking in the terms of the Privy Council while sitting on the Front Bench.

Earl Russell: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that when the noble Lord, Lord Renton, lamented the breach of confidentiality by Privy Counsellors, he was mistaken in adding the words "in recent years"?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as always, I defer to the noble Earl in his historical sweep and his view of these matters. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is concerned about the fact that these confidences are widely spread through the activities of the modern media. Those might not have been present at the time to which the noble Earl refers.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that she is as happy as I am that the traditional arrangements that have always existed between the Leader of this House and the Leader of the Opposition have been maintained and carried on, that our conversations on Privy Council terms have remained confidential, and they have always been in the interests of this House?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I can confirm that.

Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, reverting to the whole question of confidentiality referred to in the Question, does not the responsibility of a confidence freely received and given confer an obligation on a section of the population that is much greater than the Privy Council? It is usually a matter of honour that the confidences are received on the basis that they remain confidential. Is it not an obligation on us all?

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend invites me to express a personal opinion. My view is that many matters would be better discussed either on the basis that the conversation was understood to be private, or within the formal terms of an understanding of a much more serious nature such as that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I am happy to support my noble friend in that personal view.

Yugoslavia: International War Crimes Tribunal

Baroness Williams of Crosby: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will now press for those war criminals in the former republic of Yugoslavia, whose whereabouts are known, to be arrested and brought before the International War Crimes Tribunal.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have made it clear to the government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that we expect them to meet their international obligations in a spirit of partnership with the international community. This includes co-operation with the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia. We call on all states in the former Yugoslavia to arrest and transfer tribunal indictees in the territory.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the Minister will be aware of a publication this morning by the International Crisis Group listing all those responsible, or alleged to be responsible, for war crimes, including some indicted by the tribunal. First, will the whole House congratulate the UK forces in their section of the SFOR project in the south-west on having to their credit by far the highest number of arrests of alleged war criminals? Can representations be made to the governments of the United States and France to follow their excellent example?
	Secondly, will the United Kingdom Government make representations to the OSCE to the effect that people should not be appointed to responsible positions as police officers or to other significant public posts if they have been indicted for war crimes by the criminal tribunal?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I warmly agree with the noble Baroness in her expression of congratulations. I thank her for those sentiments. It is obviously of great importance for all our partners to do what they can to catch war criminals and we exhort them to do so.
	I reassure the noble Baroness that it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that there is no place for indicted war criminals in public life in either Bosnia or Herzegovina. For that reason, the OSCE election regulations bar all those who are known to have been indicted by the ICTY from public office. It is for the provisional election commission to scrutinise candidates. We expect the commission to take into account any serious allegation concerning a candidate. I am more than happy to say that we support that view and shall do all that we can to encourage it.

Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the newly elected government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia wish to ensure that war criminals are prosecuted where there is sufficient evidence, but that they wish to set up their own independent judicial system and are anxious to receive and consider applications for extradition? At the same, is it correct that they are against what they would term NATO's "snatch squads" in what they now regard as an independent democratic republic?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that that is what the newly elected government have said. We sincerely hope that they can be relied on to deliver on that aspiration. Obviously, the preferable course would be for the government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to discharge their obligations to co-operate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. I hear what is said about "snatch squads". We recognise that the new government in Belgrade will find it difficult to do this swiftly; however, we expect them to tackle the issue in the way the new government of Croatia have done since January 2000. It is all part of their progress towards meeting the normal European standards of behaviour. We certainly wish them the best of luck in carrying out that task, and we hope that we can rely on them to do so vigorously.

Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, in the estimation of the Minister and her department, if international pressure forces the new government of the Republic of Serbia to hand over war criminals to the international tribunal, might not that have a destabilising influence, for patriotic or chauvinistic reasons, on the new government in Yugoslavia? If so, would the strictures suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, do more harm than good?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have been encouraged by the statements made by Mr Kostunica. He has said that he recognises that offences have been committed and that he also recognises the need to bring to book those who are responsible. Those are encouraging signs. However, we recognise the sensitivity of his position. It is necessary to exhort him to deliver on his commitment while understanding that there may need to be a little time to enable him to do so.

Lord Brookman: My Lords, following on the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, will my noble friend indicate specifically the assistance that the Government have given to the war crimes tribunal in the former Republic of Yugoslavia?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am happy to assist the House in relation to that matter. We have given significant voluntary assistance to the tribunal. Our support has included having a British scene-of-crime team in Kosovo for the second year running to gather evidence for the tribunal and for the courts being established by the UN mission in Kosovo. We have also supplied substantial amounts of information, including intelligence, to help the tribunal in its work. United Kingdom troops in Bosnia have been involved in 13 out of 24 successful detentions by the NATO-led peacekeeping mission of persons indicted by the tribunal. I say respectfully that we are giving the highest quality of assistance. Once again, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in praising all those who have participated so successfully in that effort.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, now that Yugoslavia has regained its position in the United Nations, and now that Mr Kostunica is releasing political detainees--the so-called terrorists who were detained under the previous regime--is the Minister aware that we on this side of the House totally associate ourselves with all efforts to bring to justice in the way that is supported by the Government those who have committed atrocities?
	Does the Minister accept that, in this whole process of war indictments and branding war criminals, the approach should be one of great care and caution if the agonies of some of these divided societies--I am speaking more generally--are not to be prolonged? There is a danger that rushing this process of indictment could actually delay the process of reconciliation, which must be the basis for peace in the Balkans.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind comments in relation to the unity of view on these issues. I also understand the comments he made as regards the need for caution and care. I hope that all that I have said from this Dispatch Box about the position of Her Majesty's Government reflects the need for the caution and care of which the noble Lord speaks. Taking that factor into account, it is still necessary to say that the ICTY has a very profound job to do. In order for justice to be seen to be done, those who have been responsible for really quite atrocious war crimes need to be brought to book so that that reconciliation can be complete.

Fuel Contingency Planning

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the contingency arrangements being put in place in the event of further blockades of fuel or other essential supplies.
	"The background to these arrangements is the severe disruption to fuel supplies which occurred between 7th and 14th September.
	"Since the protests, a large number of meetings with outside bodies have been held by Ministers across government to discuss the concerns over fuel prices, in particular as they impact on the farming and haulage industries, which are already facing major structural problems. Indeed, prior to the protests, there were many such meetings. In the March Budget, as well as ending the fuel duty escalator, in place since 1993, the Chancellor of the Exchequer cut VED for the haulage industry and for smaller vehicles.
	"In the past few weeks Ministers in various departments have held numerous meetings with organisations campaigning about the high cost of fuel. These include the Road Haulage Association, the Freight Transport Association, the Fuel Forum, the People's Fuel Lobby, Farmers for Action and the Disabled Drivers' Association. In addition to setting up the Fuel Task Force, we have also held a number of meetings with oil company representatives, the trades unions and representatives of the food and other industries affected by the protests. Ministers have also visited all the main fuel refineries and depots to talk at first hand to the tanker drivers, company managers, police and others about the lessons to be learned from the protests.
	"As a result, I think that no one can fairly say that we have not made every effort to listen to people's concerns, and of course in the days that remain before the Chancellor's Statement we shall continue to do so.
	"Perhaps I may now explain to the House why it is so important to make proper preparations to protect people, industry and services as far as possible against further disruption.
	"The United Kingdom now has the fourth largest economy in the world. Employment is at record levels and inflation is the lowest in Europe. But, like all modern economies, fundamental changes in the way in which we live and work, and all the just-in-time arrangements, increase our vulnerability to those determined to cause disruption.
	"Whatever the motives of those involved, the disruption that took place in September very nearly caused serious damage to our economy.
	"The British Chamber of Commerce has published details of the effect of the disruption on the commercial activities of its members. For example, in St Helens, it reported that more than a quarter of businesses lost orders, 6 per cent laid off staff and a third predicted a long-term impact on sales. In Peterborough, almost four in 10 firms suffered lost sales and 16 per cent had to close temporarily. Many other companies suffered financial problems and lost orders. The British Chamber of Commerce concluded from its research that if the protests had 'persisted for much longer' they would have caused,
	'severe damage to many firms from which some would not have recovered'.
	This conclusion has been endorsed by the Trades Union Congress and by the CBI.
	"I am placing in the Library of the House a report summarising information available to government departments about the impact of the disruption.
	"The blockades also disrupted essential public services. At some blockades the protestors sought to excuse the impact of the disruption by letting through supplies, which they judged essential.
	"But there are literally millions of people who perform functions without which the health and other essential services would grind to a halt--from nurses, doctors, hospital receptionists and cleaners to volunteers delivering meals-on-wheels, cooks and telephone operators and of course the patients themselves. They all need fuel, yet their needs were barely recognised by those at the terminal gates.
	"It is therefore not from any desire whatever for confrontation, which we still seek to avoid, but because of our responsibilities as a government to the country as a whole that we must now make preparations to minimise the risk of this happening again.
	"So following the September events, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister asked me to chair a Fuel Task Force to help ensure that government, industry and others were better prepared to ensure the continuity for the future.
	"The task force included Ministers and representatives from the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales, the police, the oil industry, trade unions and others. It has met on four occasions. Its members first agreed a memorandum of understanding, which committed all concerned to work together to ensure continuity of oil supplies. The arrangements include plans to direct fuel supplies to a limited number of designated filling stations and to give priority to essential users. We have upgraded arrangements to ensure that local authorities and other priority users are better prepared for any future disruption.
	"As I told the House in a written Statement last week and as my right honourable friend the Armed Forces Minister repeated on Monday, we have asked the Ministry of Defence to train military drivers to help drive tankers should such assistance prove necessary; but this would be very much as a last resort.
	"Preparations have also been made to help to protect food depots; to keep major roads open; and to protect potential targets other than oil terminals.
	"There has of course been a lot of debate as to whether intimidation of drivers took place. It could well be that some drivers were sympathetic to the aims of the protesters. Many of those involved in the protests were intent on acting lawfully and peacefully, and did so. Peaceful protest is an important right in any properly functioning democracy. It is a right which I regard as one of my first duties to defend, as do the police.
	"But the behaviour of some of the protestors did create a climate in which the drivers and their managers judged that it was unsafe to allow normal operations to continue.
	"Along with ministerial colleagues, I have spoken to a large number of the tanker drivers involved. Those I met told me of a real sense of fear that they felt about driving in the face of threats of intimidation and physical attack. I am placing in the Library of the House a detailed log of 180 incidents of intimidation prepared by the oil companies, amended only to avoid identifying publicly the drivers involved. This picture of intimidation is confirmed by the Transport and General Workers' Union, whose members form a substantial majority of the drivers concerned.
	"Tactics of intimidation are unacceptable in any circumstances, but particularly so against the driver of an oil tanker in personal charge of many thousands of litres of highly explosive fuel.
	"The police and the oil companies have, therefore, drawn up detailed plans better to safeguard tanker drivers from the threat of intimidation and better to ensure that the tankers can move freely on to and along the highway. Tanker drivers have the right to go about their daily business in security and safety. Ensuring that is a central aim of our preparations.
	"Perhaps I may repeat again that the last thing this Government want is confrontation. There will always be people who hold strong and opposing views on many issues--including, today, what to do about oil prices, the problems affecting farmers, or the difficulties facing the road haulage industry. Peaceful protest can and does play an important role in drawing such concerns to the attention of government and Parliament. It is then for we in government and Parliament to make choices.
	"But I hope that the whole House will join me in saying that no one has the right to instigate the kind of disruption that we saw in September, and still less to threaten the disruption now being prepared. We have already heard public threats to blockade not only the fuel supply, but also food distribution depots. The consequences of such disruption are obvious, and they would hit the weakest and most vulnerable first. There can be no justification for such action. It is opposed by every employers' organisation and trade union, and by established hauliers and farmers' representatives.
	"The measures I have outlined today should ensure that the Government, industry and our health and other public services will be better prepared to cope with the sort of direct action we witnessed in September. But real risks will remain if people persist in protesting in an extreme and irresponsible way. Those now seeking further disruption must understand that the demands they have made could not be met without great damage to jobs and industry, to essential services including the National Health Service, to pensioners and children. We all have responsibilities.
	"Whatever the supposed Budget surplus--some figures being mooted are wildly exaggerated--government action is necessarily limited in three ways: it must be consistent with keeping interest rates and so mortgages at their present low; it must not prevent us taking action to support pensioners who also need help; and it must not change the absolutely essential programme of investment in key public services--schools, hospitals, transport and police--which the Chancellor announced in July.
	"The right to argue, to complain and to protest is an essential feature of a democratic society; preventing law-abiding people from going about their business, and threatening the well-being of the country is not. I hope that the whole House will join in support of the measures and the approach which I have outlined today".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I am sure the whole House is grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Home Secretary. However, it said little, and as far as I could detect nothing new, about what measures the Government propose to take in the event of further disruption. Instead it was full of bluster and argument, a lot of which is not controversial between all sides of your Lordships' House.
	I confirm that we believe that the Government should take measures to protect essential supplies if there are further problems of the kind we witnessed in September. I also confirm that we thoroughly deplore unlawful or dangerous protests or intimidation. We shall, of course, study the evidence to be put in the Library on the extent of the intimidation that occurred in September. However, did the Minister see the statement of the Transport and General Workers' Union official at one depot at the time:
	"This is a people's protest ... It is a peaceful protest. It is the Government which is out of order"?
	Has the Minister also seen what Sir John Evans, speaking for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said:
	"Despite some isolated and generally small-scale incidents of attempted intimidation, these movements have taken place peacefully"?
	In order to give noble Lords a feel for the extent of the intimidation, will the Minister tell us how many people were arrested and how many were charged with offences of violence, or threatened violence, as a result of the incidents in September? Given all this, does the Minister think it wise for the Government to make belligerent Statements such as this one; to talk of bringing in the Army; and publicly to urge what they in other circumstances call "panic buying" of fuel by government agencies, while deploring the same buying by other people trying to be prepared in the light of what Ministers have said?
	The impression I get is that Ministers--who were quite rightly politically intimidated by the scale of the protests--are now attacking the protesters. Do the Government now realise that if you dumb down and bypass Parliament people will find other outlets, however much we may deplore that? Do they realise that it is Statements such as this one which build up a crisis atmosphere, when the Government should seek to address the reasons why so many ordinary citizens feel the need to protest against the highest motoring and transport taxes in Europe?

Lord McNally: My Lords, first, I make it clear that we on these Benches do not consider the Statement belligerent but prudent. Whether it is an unnamed TGWU official talking about a people's protest or the Leader of the Opposition talking about fine upstanding Englishmen, we disown those kind of statements associated with this extra-parliamentary activity. I assure the Minister that the Government have the unequivocal support--I am not sure we have heard that from the Official Opposition--of these Benches for the Statement today.
	On a point of clarification, the Statement was made in the other place by the Home Secretary as chairman of the Fuel Task Force and repeated in this Chamber by the Minister of State for Transport. Can we be assured that this is real joined-up government? Which department is taking responsibility for these matters? Will the Government embark on a public information campaign to explain their priorities in terms of availability? I suggest that that is a good job for Dr John Reid, who appeared to be the only Minister to keep his nerve during the previous disruption.
	Is the Co-operative Movement fully involved in guaranteeing food supplies? I understand that in September it was not initially consulted about that. Are there plans to call in the oil company heads before the planned disruption to make it clear that certain things are expected of them in terms of leadership should the planned disruption take place?
	Will the Government also educate the public on the need for us to face up to the problems caused by over- consumption of energy in the western world? Such a campaign makes sense economically and environmentally. However, it is not a matter of the Prime Minister dipping his toe in and then dropping the issue again. It must be a sustained campaign and commitment. Is the Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions the right size and shape for the job? Do not we need a department shaped to the nation's needs rather than to the size of the Deputy Prime Minister's ego? That department is sprawling and showing signs of sprawl. In shaping policy will the Government have due regard to the needs of the rural economy? Will the Home Secretary use his full range of powers against intimidation and exploitation?
	There are lessons to be learned on all sides. The Government made a mistake in assuming that fuel tax was a stealth tax with no political downside. There is now a need for a long-term strategy to lift environmental issues up the agenda and to win the argument for a public transport alternative which is cheap, efficient and available. Such a strategy will not be popular all the time. There will be losers as well as winners. However, my advice to the Government, at least for the next few weeks, is to send home the focus groups and the spin doctors and get on with the job of governing. If they govern with strength, they will have the support of this House and, I suspect, of the country at large.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for our efforts to protect essential services and for his condemnation, as far as it went, of the protest and the motivations behind it. However, I too found some of his quotations a little selective and unconvincing. I do not know the representative of the Transport and General Workers' Union whom he quoted. However, I know that the TGWU put up 25 solid instances of intimidation which it received from the drivers. Like my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, I, too, have been visiting terminals, talking to scores of drivers and hearing their stories about varying degrees of intimidation.
	Sir John Evans served with us during the days of the worst effects of the protests. At the time there were small-scale incidents. Subsequently, those have been collated in a more methodical way by the oil companies interviewing the drivers. That is why we reach the total of 180, despite the fact that the police took an understandably low-key approach which limited the number of arrests to a couple, as far as I remember. That police approach was typically British. They did not go in in a provocative way. They let matters develop and hoped that they would take the normal course: that people would make their point and then go home before they did any serious damage to the country or their fellow citizens. It became apparent towards the end of that week that some dangers were inherent in that assumption.
	However, I do not believe that what we have said today is in any way belligerent. I went out of my way to stress the fact that we have been listening. I think that the country would expect no less of any government than that they would make these preparations. Indeed, it is prudent of companies and the public services to ensure that they can keep running as long as possible should there be any recurrence of the situation.
	I find the implication that bypassing Parliament--a process I do not recognise or accept--might be a rationale for disruptive action somewhat distasteful. It can never be.
	From the Liberal Democrats, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, gave welcome and unequivocal support. I should explain that the task force is made up of Ministers from a number of departments. The Home Secretary is the chairman of the task force. I am there as Transport Minister, with the Secretary of State for the DTI and my right honourable friend Andrew Smith from the Treasury. On that task force we also have representatives of the oil companies. There were confusions; those difficulties affected all parties in such a complex, fast-moving disparate dispute. But the oil companies have signed up to a memorandum of understanding, with the police, government, trade unions and local authorities all involved in that process so that there is far more co-ordination should there be any recurrence of these events.
	I have found the fact that my department covers environment, transport and the regions very useful with the joined-up government that that affords. The government offices across the regions help to co-ordinate the local authority and police efforts. Transport was vitally important--not only as regards the roads but also on our railways and bus and aviation services.
	Yes, there is, too, the environmental aspect of which the noble Lord spoke. I think that the Deputy Prime Minister was referred to in unfairly disparaging terms. The Deputy Prime Minister drew attention just this week to the related environmentally created problems which so concern the noble Lord.
	While the police are operationally independent, as ever, noble Lords may be assured that they have made it clear that they intend to use what powers they have, while guaranteeing people's right to peaceful protest. We shall govern with the strength required as events may recur. For the country's sake, let us hope that they do not recur. However, I assure your Lordships that we shall govern for all the people. We shall never be intimidated by those who shout the loudest or push the hardest.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, should not the Minister address the disease rather than the symptoms of the disease? Despite the penal levels of taxation on fuel, is there not little evidence of consumption being reduced? To present this as an environmental measure is, frankly, dishonest. Is it not extraordinary to see a Labour Government, supported by their friends in the Liberal Party, defending a highly regressive form of taxation which damages people on fixed incomes, those living in rural areas and the elderly? Should not the Minister address that aspect and reduce the burden of taxation on fuel in our country?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I do not recognise the reference to the penal levels of taxation. The 26p per litre reduction demanded by the protesters would total some £12 billion. That is clearly utterly unrealistic. Also if one factors in the low personal taxes and the lower corporation taxes that we pay, and the fact that our VAT is often lower than elsewhere, one realises that the United Kingdom offers one of the lowest tax regimes in Europe.
	I find the accusation of environmental dishonesty quite breathtaking in this context. The fuel duty escalator was introduced in 1993 by a government of whom the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was a member and who justified its introduction by reference to its environmental effect.

Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, living as we do under the rule of law, does the Minister agree that the police role should rightly be that of impartially policing any dispute between parties--whether a domestic dispute or one of the nature we discuss today? Does my noble friend also agree that if there is evidence of people conspiring to commit criminal offences--it may amount to obstructing the road by slow convoy or otherwise--the police should consider offences such as conspiracy to deal with the problem, no matter how fine and upstanding the citizens who have conspired?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I defer to my noble friend's experience. He will know better than anyone else that it is a matter for police discretion. I sympathise with his concern. Statements have been made about bringing about Armageddon. I believe that it was stated yesterday that democracy had run out of time. Such statements, threats to food and fuel supplies and threats that lorries might be pulled across rail crossings, and so on, are unacceptable. However, the police are better prepared and have at their disposal the public order measure and highways legislation which contain provisions for arrestable offences. I am sure that the police can be counted upon to ensure that there is no disruption on a scale which would inconvenience our country.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the Minister indicate whether his task force will remain in being after the present crisis is resolved, as we hope that it will be successfully, in order to tackle the longer-term issues to which the Minister and my noble friend Lord McNally referred? I think particularly of forms of transport in the future and the way in which they should be fuelled.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I hope that there will be no need to continue with our present task force after the Statement to be made next week by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are other ways of approaching the conflation of problems to which the noble Lord referred. Had we time to go into them in detail, I could show him that we are taking action on most of them.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many disabled, vulnerable and frail people, particularly elderly people, are deeply concerned and very apprehensive about the thought of further petrol shortages? We have heard that the Government are taking steps to maintain essential services, but many such people rely on access to a car to get to services or to have services brought to them that are essential to them. They may need to get food, to go to a day centre, or to visit the doctor. Many of them do not have their own car. They must be able to rely on help from others.
	I heard of one home care scheme whose co-ordinator was deeply worried during the previous shortages that she would lose touch completely with her elderly dependent clients, because her volunteer drivers in their own cars were running out of petrol. I am sure that that worry is replicated nationally. Robust measures need to be taken, particularly given recent weather conditions, to ensure that such voluntary measures can be maintained. If they are not, there will be very sad, if not tragic, consequences.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I totally agree with the noble Baroness. There was no greater obscenity during the recent events than the pickets outside gates deciding what was essential and what was inessential with very little understanding of how our complex and vulnerable society works. It is not a case simply of keeping blue light services supplied. As I said earlier, millions of our fellow citizens need to be mobile, particularly to look after the vulnerable. As the noble Baroness said, great concerns were beginning to develop at the end of the last set of events about the supply of drugs to people who were ill at home, some of them in a very poor condition. There were also worries about home helps, home care and meals on wheels. All those services require people to turn up at their place of work and get into a car and drive to help the most vulnerable in our society. It may not have been fully appreciated at the time, but it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that there are no illusions about the severity of the consequences of interrupting fuel and food supplies.

Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the most distressing elements in the saga is the distasteful insensitivity of some of those threatening disruptive action? For example, whatever their difficulties, to see any comparison between the hardship that they claim that they suffer and the hardship suffered by the original Jarrow marchers is almost unimaginable from any quarter in our society. That should be treated with the contempt that it deserves.
	Does my noble friend also agree that there is a strategic question at stake in the dispute? It is the relationship between our fuel policy and the accelerating dangers of global warming. Is it not important for the Government to give more prominence to that strategic consideration when deploying their case?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I entirely agree with those sentiments. The Jarrow march in the early 1930s, when millions were unemployed and people were in a state of destitution, is in no way comparable with the problems that some hauliers and farmers face today. That is not to underestimate the problems of those industries. As I said earlier, hauliers earn very tight margins--indeed, some of them make almost no margin--and the stresses in the farming community are well known. However, as some of this morning's newspapers have pointed out, some of those involved have substantial capital assets and could in no way be compared with those who marched from Jarrow.
	I do not accept that we are not addressing the issue of global warming. My right honourable friends the Minister for the Environment, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister have all talked recently about the importance of ensuring that our actions today do not imperil this planet in the future.

Lord Boardman: My Lords, the Minister referred to the cuts in expenditure on health, education and other matters that would be a consequence of a reduction in fuel tax. Were not the funding arrangements made at the time of the Budget and based on the price of petrol at that time? Since then, has there not been a massive escalation in the price of petrol and consequent excess revenue for the Government? Is it not provocative to refer to such figures at such a sensitive time, suggesting that, after the bonuses that the Government have received, any reduction in fuel tax would inevitably cut into essential items such as health and education?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I do not accept the thrust of the noble Lord's argument, because the financial situation is always dynamic. I am sure that, like me, he has read this week that the Treasury's take from corporate taxation and capital gains tax may have gone down recently. Demands for a 26p cut in fuel duty have been made to me in private, on television and at many meetings that I have held with some of the groups who are demanding negotiation--as they put it--and who say that we do not listen when what they mean is that we have listened, but we do not agree with them. It is indisputable that that would add up to £11.8 billion. We could not take that out of our resources without consequent damage to other services. Those to whom I have talked have made it clear that it is not in their minds to reduce the £3.8 billion that goes to farmers--and nor should it be. I have pointed out to them that the Prime Minister took charge of the recent negotiations that delivered an extra £200 million to farmers. I have also pointed out that the fishermen who have come to the aid of some of the protesters pay no duty on their diesel. Farmers readily accept that they pay only 3p on their red diesel. The equation is complicated and was not illuminated by the noble Lord's contribution.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope it is accepted in every quarter of the House that in times of protest, whatever our opinion of the protest, the Government's first priority must be that the show must go on. Pursuant to that, the Minister may remember that during the last protest, a number of lorry drivers abandoned their lorries in the carriageway in the middle of Hyde Park Corner during rush hour. I must declare an interest, having been personally affected, but I doubt that the view that that is an undesirable practice is particularly controversial. Will the Minister consult his right honourable friend the Home Secretary and ask him to discuss with the police whether they see any need for additional powers to deal with that practice, should it be repeated?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am assured by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and others on the task force that the police have said that they believe that they have all the powers necessary to deal with any events of the kind described. Yes, lorries were abandoned in Park Lane and, yes, in line with their operational independence the police took the type of decision which they felt was suitable at that place and time. Certainly, from this distance I would not try to second-guess those decisions.
	However, the noble Earl is correct: the show must go on. I hope that, from what they have heard today, noble Lords will feel that we are doing everything in our power to ensure that the show does go on.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, noble Lords opposite blame the crisis on fuel duty. However, does my noble friend agree that the escalation in the summer was caused almost entirely by the doubling of the OPEC price? Therefore, a balance must be struck. We must stick to our Kyoto commitments, but it is the handling of the OPEC effect that has caused such difficulty, which of course includes the difficulty in relation to public finance.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, in my previous ministerial incarnation at the Scottish Office I was responsible for North Sea oil and gas, and went to bed of a night praying that the price of oil would rise from 10 dollars a barrel. As it began to rise inexorably, I was switched to transport. Therefore, the fact that the price has trebled in only 18 months has burned in my brain. I believe that OPEC's impact has been important.
	However, other forces are at work here, too. We have a stable economy; we have the lowest unemployment for 25 years; we have the lowest inflation in Europe; and we have historically low and stable interest rates. Consequently, we also have a very strong currency. Although the price of, say, a litre of diesel in this country seems high compared with the cost in Europe, it is worth saying that, were the pound still at 2.45 deutschmarks, we would probably have the fourth or fifth most expensive fuel in Europe. Therefore, many factors impinge on this matter. It would be simplistic to imply that our continuation of the previous government's fuel duty escalator and our subsequent increases in duty were solely to blame.

Lord Burnham: My Lords, the noble Lord said that it had been concluded that it was too dangerous for the tanker drivers to take out their vehicles. Therefore--I believe that there is a degree of causation about this--it is the Government's plan that in certain circumstances military drivers should be employed. In terms of the danger, can the noble Lord tell me the difference between a military driver, who, of course, is under discipline and will obey orders, and an ordinary tanker driver? Will they not be in equal danger when taking out such a vehicle? Is it planned that military tankers should be protected by the police (which would be interesting), or are we going to see armed convoys? Is this not a slight reflection of the General Strike, and will the Government be very careful in their use of the military for these purposes?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, like any government, this Government would be most cautious in introducing Army drivers. However, it is quite clear that that power should be available in the last resort. We shall continue to work closely with the police and with trade unions to ensure that maximum safety is provided for the tanker drivers. In those circumstances, it should be possible to keep fuel supplies moving. If occasions arise when that is not possible, then of course we must have recourse to other help. That help comes most readily from the Ministry of Defence.
	However, I stress that no magic wand can be waved. We would probably be able to keep 20, 30 or 40 per cent of fuel going should we be forced to rely on the Army alone. Therefore, we look to the support of every part of the community. We look to the Benches opposite to stand alongside the Liberal Democrats, the CBI, the trade unions and, indeed, a whole range of industries. Yesterday the retail industry stated that this type of intimidation is utterly unacceptable inside a democracy.

Lord Denham: My Lords, do the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, and Her Majesty's Government agree that at least some lesson is to be learnt from the quite extraordinary measure of support given to the protest by the general public, even though the general public itself was inconvenienced by it?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I accept that people have every right to feel aggrieved at what governments do and to support action in protest. However, I believe that, over time, the consequences of those actions have become clearer. People have had time to reflect and to see more clearly what could have happened as a result of the dispute. Therefore, it is no accident that, as reflected in the newspapers this week, we see a swing of opinion. I noted with interest that the Sun, the Daily Mirror and the Star as well as The Times, the Guardian and other newspapers have come out strongly against the protestors.
	Should people persist with the threats that have been made recently, which would hit the sick and the vulnerable first and worst, then, as I say--I make no apologies for repeating the request--I hope that everyone in the House will stand up and declare firmly that that type of disruption has no place in a democracy.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that we have come to the end of the mandatory time available, as set out in the Companion.

Transport Bill

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
	Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.--(Lord Macdonald of Tradeston.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: moved Amendment No. 295:
	Before Clause 253, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:("Charges for street works on highway
	:TITLE3:CHARGE FOR WHOLE DURATION OF WORKS
	.--(1) In the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, after section 74 insert--
	"Charge determined by reference to duration of works.
	74A.--(1) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations requiring an undertaker executing street works in a maintainable highway to pay to the highway authority a charge determined, in the prescribed manner, by reference to the duration of the works.
	(2) The regulations shall not require charges to be paid to a local highway authority unless the Secretary of State has approved it for the purposes of the regulations by order made by statutory instrument.
	(3) The regulations may prescribe exemptions from the requirement to pay charges.
	(4) The regulations may prescribe different rates of charge according to--
	(a) the extent to which the surface of the highway is affected by the works,
	(b) the place and time at which the works are executed, and
	(c) such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.
	(5) The regulations may--
	(a) prescribe more than one rate of charge in respect of the same description of works, and
	(b) provide that charges are to be paid in respect of any works of that description at the rate which appears to the highway authority to be appropriate in relation to those works.
	(6) The regulations may make provision for the determination of the duration of works for the purposes of the regulations.
	(7) And they may, in particular, make provision for works to be treated as beginning or ending on the giving of, or as stated in, a notice given by the undertaker to the highway authority, in the prescribed manner, in accordance with a requirement imposed by the regulations.
	(8) The regulations may make provision as to the time and manner of making payment of charges.
	(9) The regulations shall provide that a highway authority may reduce the amount, or waive payment, of a charge--
	(a) in any particular case,
	(b) in such classes of case as they may decide or as may be prescribed, or
	(c) in all cases or in all cases other than a particular case or such class of case as they may decide or as may be prescribed.
	(10) The regulations may make provision as to--
	(a) the application by local highway authorities of sums paid by way of charges, and
	(b) the keeping of accounts, and the preparation and publication of statements of account, relating to sums paid by way of charges.
	(11) The regulations may create in respect of any failure to give a notice required by the regulations a criminal offence triable summarily and punishable with a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
	(12) The regulations may require disputes of any prescribed description to be referred to an arbitrator appointed in accordance with the regulations.
	(13) The first regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament; subsequent regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
	Regulations under sections 74 and 74A.
	74B. Nothing shall be taken to prevent the imposition of charges by both regulations under section 74 and regulations under section 74A in respect of the execution of the same works at the same time."
	(2) The reference to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 in Schedule 1 to the National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999 is to be treated as referring to that Act as amended by this section and section (Charges where works unreasonably prolonged).").

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 295, I wish to speak to the other amendments in this group, also standing in my name.
	In response to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, in Committee, I announced that the Government would consider whether we could bring forward amendments on Report to provide powers for highway authorities to levy a charge on undertakers who carry out street works from the first day of works--the so-called "lane rental". I am glad to say that the amendments before us now fulfil that pledge.
	In that regard, I must confess that I believed that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, was pressing a matter beyond what I considered to be possible. However, such was his persistence and eloquence that I and colleagues looked at the matter again and again to ensure that it was fully referred. I am delighted to say that we finally concluded that we had been tardy and that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, had been right.
	I should make clear that the Government fully recognise that gas, telecommunications and other undertakers have statutory rights to carry out street works as part of providing the public with services which we regard as essential in a modern society. On the other hand, businesses, public transport users, pedestrians, private motorists and other road users are entitled to expect the minimum disruption from those necessary activities.
	A number of measures are already in place or are in the process of being introduced to minimise the disruption caused by street works. However, the Government are well aware that there is no room for complacency. As noble Lords may recall, last year we consulted interested parties on a number of options for reducing disruption from street works. After considering the responses, we announced in April this year our intention to activate Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. That will allow highway authorities to charge utility companies in respect of street works which are unreasonably prolonged.
	We have now prepared draft regulations which set out the detailed arrangements for operating a scheme under Section 74. Those are currently out to consultation, and we hope to be in a position to lay them before Parliament by the end of the year. Copies of the draft regulations and the other consultation documents are in the Library. The regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution.
	However, we fully recognise that it may be necessary to introduce further measures if the Section 74 arrangements do not result in a sufficient reduction in the present level of disruption.
	So, we shall be reviewing the situation to see whether further measures may be required; for instance, a lane rental scheme allowing highway authorities to charge undertakers from the outset of works, even where these do not overrun an agreed deadline.
	New Clause 295 provides for regulations to implement such a lane rental scheme. But it does not attempt to set out every last detail on the face of the Bill. Should we decide that we wish to activate this power, we shall want to consult extensively with interested parties, including highway authorities and utilities, on the detailed arrangements.
	The 1991 Act already requires undertakers to notify highway authorities about the execution of works. We envisage additionally that any lane rental scheme would be underpinned by a requirement for undertakers to produce formal notices informing authorities of each of the key dates for individual works. So, for example, they would have to produce a notice announcing the actual start date of works and another stating the date on which the reinstatement of the road surface was completed. These notices would allow the authority to calculate the rental charge for which the undertaker was liable.
	We should make it clear that should we decide to introduce regulations activating the power to operate lane rental schemes, authorities will not be forced to put such a scheme in place in their area. After all, it is quite clear that the disruption caused by streetworks is a greater problem in some parts of the country than in others. Given this, subsection (2) makes it clear that authorities wishing to proceed with a scheme will need to submit details of it to the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly, as appropriate, for approval.
	In considering whether to approve a scheme, we shall want to satisfy ourselves that authorities are acting responsibly and that the detail of the scheme is commensurate with the disruption caused by streetworks in their area. It would not be acceptable, for example, if it became clear that an authority's motive in introducing a scheme was purely to raise extra revenue for itself.
	While it is our intention to address the detailed arrangements for lane rental in regulations, the amendment does set out some of the issues that we shall want to cover there. These might include, for instance, the level at which charges should be set, and how these would vary according to the location, extent and timing of works. We should also want to set out what exemptions there might be from a requirement to pay lane rental charges, for instance for emergency works which have to be carried out at very short notice.
	Whatever the detailed arrangements for operating the lane rental scheme might be, should the Government decide to proceed to laying regulations these will be subject to affirmative resolution. Noble Lords will, therefore, have the opportunity to scrutinise the proposals in detail at that stage.
	New Clause 296 modifies the existing power in Section 74 of the 1991 Act for the Secretary of State to issue regulations which require undertakers to pay a charge to the relevant highway authority where their works exceed the deadline which had previously been agreed with the authority.
	As I explained earlier, draft regulations under Section 74 are currently out for consultation. However, when preparing these, it became apparent that in any scheme for providing for highway authorities to charge undertakers, the authorities would need clear evidence of when works began and ended.
	Following discussion between the relevant parties, it was agreed, as with lane rental, that the best way to provide this evidence would be for the regulations to provide for formal notices to be given by undertakers to highway authorities stating the start and close of works. However, the 1991 Act does not currently provide the power for requiring such notices. Also, although Section 74 provides that an undertaker may inform the highway authority that his original estimate of the duration of works is likely to be exceeded, there is no power to require that this be done by way of a notice from the undertaker to the authority, or to prescribe the contents of such a notice. The new clause thus provides for such notices to be given, and for their contents to be prescribed in regulations.
	Section 74 of the 1991 Act already provides for a number of matters relating to the levying of charges to be dealt with in regulations; for instance, the time and manner of payment of charges and the ability of the authority to waive or reduce payments in certain circumstances.
	However, in order to bring the arrangements into line with those for lane rental, the amendment also provides for a number of further areas to be dealt with in regulations. So, for instance, the regulations may allow for certain works, such as emergency works, to be exempted from the requirement to pay charges.
	Amendment No. 337 is a simple tidying-up exercise to make it clear that as a result of the changes we are making to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, an undertaker will now be obliged, rather than given the option, to submit a notice to the relevant highway authority containing a revised estimate of duration where he considers that works are likely to exceed the original deadline agreed with the authority. This will make it far easier for the authority to track the progress of specific works.
	Finally, Amendment No. 338 makes it clear that the revised power to make regulations under Sections 74 and 74A of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 applies only to England and Wales.
	Roadworks is a devolved matter for Scotland, and it is for the Scottish Parliament to make separate provision in primary legislation, should it choose to do so. I beg to move.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should like to say how touched I was by the generous remarks with which the noble Lord opened his speech. Not all Ministers either listen very carefully or are subsequently prepared to admit that they were wrong and change course and then very generously to give the credit to a political opponent. The noble Lord did so, and I am grateful to him.
	In thanking the Minister, I hope that for as long as the noble Lord remains in his post, the powers that the Government are taking will not end up as another battery of guns which are for ever silent.
	What justification is there for allowing approximately 138 companies to dig holes in the road more or less at their convenience and with not the slightest regard--indeed, they have a contemptuous disregard--for the interests of others who have every right to use the road? The present arrangements allow that legion of people to stake out their territories with cones, rather like wild animals. Of course, they do use cones, rather than the methods of the jungle. It seems to me that they are over-privileged.
	The process allows those operators not merely to stake out their territories, but to come back at their convenience and dig a hole, leaving it untenanted and unoccupied, and to return when pressure of other things allows. They do what they have to do in the hole, fill it up and before they leave, carry out very inadequate repairs. The only excuse for that casual conduct is that as soon as they finish, someone else will dig up the same road for a quite different purpose.
	This good cause has been neglected by the media in general, but Mr Freeman of the Evening Standard has pursued zealously a well-justified campaign. He called attention to the disgusting state of Regent Street, occasioned simply by the amount of space cordoned off for these operations and the litter and filth which accumulated as a result.
	I quote from an article of 10th April in the Evening Standard which stated:
	"The hole, dug on behalf of contractors working for gas pipeline maintenance company, Transco, sat in the middle of one of London's busiest bus lanes which serves seven different bus routes. It was one of at least five sets of roadworks in the West End where, as the Evening Standard disclosed last week, traffic is being reduced to a virtual standstill by contractors working for numerous utilities".
	I do not want to single out one company in particular, but Transco seems to be a regular, very consistent and rather ungracious offender, although it must be said in its defence that when someone from the Evening Standard rang it up and said, "You've got a hole which you are not attending to", someone did come running along the next day to fill it in. But that should not have been necessary.
	I rather wonder about this. Transco is, or was, a subsidiary of a creature called British Gas, which has now ceased to exist, I believe, in all but name. Transco is owned by a firm called Lattice Group, which resides in Jermyn Street. I wonder whether the chairman, Mr John Parker--the time has come to mention a few names--is really aware of the indignation, inconvenience and annoyance for which he or his company is responsible. I hope that he will learn some lessons before too long.
	I have continued to press this matter for a good year now because I have been rather shocked by the way in which offenders seem to have little regret and no remorse or even concern about the inconvenience that they cause to others.
	One must be concerned also about subcontractors who seem only too often to be a law unto themselves and their principals do not consider themselves in any way responsible for the way in which they conduct their affairs. I very much hope that the Minister's forceful character will make it clear to principals that they are responsible and answerable for what their subcontractors do. There is no possible excuse for letting them get away with the cavalier behaviour for which they are so often responsible.
	I turn now briefly to highway authorities and in that bracket, for the moment, I include the Highways Agency. Those are the authorities upon which we are dependent generally for keeping our highways for the purpose for which they were originally intended, but which is often forgotten; namely, movement. The fact that highways were originally constructed for movement seems to be largely forgotten by, of all people, highways authorities which prolong their activities for operations which are quite often minor and trivial, but they go on for weeks, attended to by one or two men. There is no urgency about it. There is absolutely no sense of concern about the inconvenience caused to the public.
	I hope that the noble Lord will undertake to address some very sharp words and advice to those upon whom he is going to rely to make his policies effective, those policies which we shall certainly approve today.
	I cannot resist the temptation to mention Westminster Bridge. What has happened in regard to Westminster Bridge must have aroused the envy of all those who wish to disrupt and upset ordinary human commerce. I asked the Minister about this matter, but he was quite unable to answer for reasons with which I sympathise. But I should not mind having a bet with him that over the past five years or so there has been practically no days at all when all the lanes on Westminster Bridge, and the access roads to the bridge, were available to ordinary traffic. That is an absolute scandal.
	When the very long bridge in San Francisco was upset by an earthquake, the Americans got it open again in months. It took three years or more to strengthen Westminster Bridge. They could have pulled the whole damn thing down and rebuilt it in less than that time if there were even a remote measure of competence.
	I have the gravest doubts about the competence, will and resolution of highway authorities. I hope that the Minister will do his best to set them on the course for improvement. Heaven knows, they can hardly get worse.
	The Government can be absolutely sure of support on this. I hope that they will not under-rate--I am sure they do not--the immense forces of inertia which they are against on the part of utilities which, so far, have shown nothing but determination to continue to enjoy unjustified privileges.
	I pay tribute to, among others, the RAC which has been extremely persistent in pressing this case upon the Government. I should like to quote from a letter which it wrote to me the other day which stated:
	"The number of utility street works are most noticeable in central London around the Palace of Westminster at present time. Parliament Square has been chaos for most of the summer, along with St James' and Piccadilly. Extensive working is being undertaken around Northumberland Avenue and Old Palace Yard. Due to work on Westminster Bridge traffic is being forced into one lane of traffic at either side. Similarly, considerable work is being undertaken along Birdcage Walk".
	We are left with hardly a patch of this part of London untouched. If there is, that must be because its existence has just been ignored.
	I do not want to trespass further upon your Lordships' time. But I have three particular worries. First, in the amendment which the Minister moved, he has been loyal to the draftsman and left in the word "may" as opposed to "shall". I should be very much happier to see the amendment read that the Secretary of State "shall" make provision instead of the rather humble and lame-sounding "may". But I hope that the spirit of the noble Lord will be sufficient to give that word "may" rather more of an imperative smack.
	My second point is to express some regret that the lane rental power will not be used unless and until the other measures seem insufficient. In present circumstances, and having regard to the record of the people who have caused this trouble regularly, I believe that the noble Lord will be well advised to bring out all his forces now, aim them at those who really deserve to be shot at, and conduct an operation with all the means at his disposal in order to make sure of the result.
	My third concern is that the paralysis which comes of having too many people involved and no one responsible may come oozing out and swamp the Government's present good intentions. The result would then be to buttress and give fresh life to the incompetence, ill manners and abuse of privilege which has been such a nuisance on the roads and streets not just of London but of this country as a whole for far too long.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I compliment my noble friend for having listened to the representations that have been made. In no way do I cast any aspersions upon the noble Lord who has been a friend of mine for many years. However, my noble friend has learned a superb lesson in regard to listening to the concerns of this House. We have had the experience not only of the theories, but of the day-to-day practical concerns as regards this matter. I thank my noble friend for having listened carefully to the representations that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
	I apologise that, as a result of my stroke, sometimes I become rather muddled. However, I am not muddled about one thing: the experience of every person who has come before my noble friend has been taken into account and I thank him from the bottom of my heart.

Lord Monson: My Lords, as someone who has previously spoken out in favour of just such a move, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, for his insistence, and like the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I congratulate the Government on being open-minded enough to listen to the arguments and to accept them in such a constructive manner. These amendments are extremely worth while and will be widely welcomed by the public at large.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I have a few questions to put to the Minister, but first I thank him and I congratulate most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, who, through his own campaign, working with the Evening Standard and with quite a lot of coverage from "Today in Parliament", has kept this issue well to the fore.
	On the first amendment, can the Minister confirm that the provisions will extend to footpaths as well as to carriageways? He mentioned pedestrians, but can we be assured that the dislodging of pedestrians from footpaths, as well as the problems of works to a carriageway spilling over on to a footpath, will be taken into account?
	On the lane rental provisions, noble Lords will be aware that local authorities charge undertakers when the highway authority has to refill a hole because it has been filled so incompetently in the first place, and that that is something that happens quite often. I hope that the rental charged to the undertaker will extend to that circumstance; in other words, that the highway authority will not have to bear the cost. I appreciate that that point will be covered by regulations and will not be on the face of the Bill.
	The Minister made a point about the start and finish of works. I hope that the factual position will override a date notified by an undertaker. Frankly, I would be fairly suspicious about the accuracy of such dates. I am sure that I am not the only Member of this House who is irritated by how much litter, such as abandoned signs and pieces of fencing from around works, is left behind at the close of works, particularly in London. Often those who undertake work do not clear up once the job is finished.
	Having made those three points, I thank the Minister for ensuring that these provisions are included in the Bill.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. He has been concerned with this matter for a long time and deserves every congratulation on achieving government acceptance, in principle, of his proposals.
	My point follows on a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on lane rentals for footpaths. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, mentioned Birdcage Walk. I do not know whether he has tried to walk along that road, but it is just about impossible to drive down it, and walking down it is even worse because the contractors have taken over both footpaths with an unfriendly wire fence.
	Regularly one finds that footpaths are blocked by spoil from road excavations. One classic case in Oxford, where I live, involved a bus lane where one is encouraged to cycle as it is also a cycle route. For some reason it was dug up and a large sign was erected saying, "Cyclists dismount". Why should cyclists dismount? Why should not the cars slow down? Why should there not be space for pedestrians? If cars and vehicles can use the road, cyclists and pedestrians should be able to use it as well.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I join noble Lords who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Peyton on his supreme resistance in raising this issue for about a year, through Starred Questions, Unstarred Questions, a Private Member's Bill and amendments to this Bill. The result is that we have government amendments that meet his points. I also thank the Minister warmly for bringing forward these amendments.
	I may not have understood what the Minister said in introducing the amendments. He said that the regulations under existing Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act are now in draft and out for consultation and it is hoped that they will be brought into force by the end of the year. The second of the two amendments seeks to amend Section 74 and mentions regulations. Will those regulations come in simultaneously with those regulations that are now out in draft form, or will there be a further delay while they are consulted upon? I do not want to sound carpish, but originally the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said in June that he had hoped that the orders would be laid before the House in the autumn, before the end of this parliamentary session. We have already seen some slippage in that, but that may be because the second amendment requires additional regulations. Can the Minister clarify that particular point?

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, my understanding of the regulations, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, is that the reports on the consultations will occur simultaneously, so the answer is yes. My noble friend Lord Berkeley spoke of the position in Birdcage Walk. I remind the House that that is a royal park and what takes place there is up to the royal park.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned footpaths, or footways as they are technically described. They will come under the same considerations as roads. As for pedestrians, there will be a code of practice that will set out how utilities should carry out their works, which should make provision for pedestrians. Clearly, the rental costs will be a matter for regulation. I am sure that that will encompass the point that she makes about the factual position as to the notification of dates.
	I am grateful to all those who congratulated us on this matter. As I said earlier, those congratulations belong in large measure to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I accept his stricture on the word "shall" as opposed to the word "may". I confess to being a victim of the tyranny of the pedants who draft these provisions; but I am the creature in these matters in this instance.
	The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, posed many other questions of substance. Like him, I hope that these powers will not be an unused battery of guns if there is evidence that they are required. My intuition, which I am sure the noble Lord shares, is that when new Section 74A is enacted, it will be seen as something that can be usefully employed throughout England and Wales. I anticipate that Section 74 will be given something of a run for its money. But in the not-too-distant future, new Section 74A will be called into play.
	I take also the noble Lord's point about the campaign conducted by the Evening Standard. In my previous role, one of the media companies under my chairmanship was the Glasgow Evening Times, which won the award for being the best evening newspaper in the United Kingdom, but ceded it quite rapidly to the Evening Standard. I should say that under the editorship of Max Hastings, Londoners are well served by that newspaper in its constant vigilance. It is well known for its awards so I hope that, if it introduces a new award, perhaps for good works as well as roadworks, at some point it will set a golden cone upon the head of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton.
	I am delighted that what we have been able to do in this regard has been so well received. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 296:
	Before Clause 253, insert the following new clause--

CHARGES WHERE WORKS UNREASONABLY PROLONGED

(".--(1) Section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (charges where works unreasonably prolonged) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (2) insert--
	"(2A) The regulations may prescribe exemptions from the requirement to pay charges."
	(3) In subsection (3)--
	(a) for "may submit to the authority" substitute "shall give to the authority, in such manner as may be prescribed, notice containing", and
	(b) for "so submitted" substitute "contained in a notice given to an authority in such manner".
	(4) In subsection (4), for "may submit" substitute "shall give to the authority, in such manner as may be prescribed, notice containing".
	(5) After subsection (5) insert--
	"(5A) The regulations may--
	(a) prescribe more than one rate of charge in respect of the same description of works, and
	(b) provide that charges are to be paid in respect of any works of that description at the rate which appears to the highway authority to be appropriate in relation to those works.
	(5B) The regulations may make provision for the determination of the duration of works for the purposes of the regulations.
	(5C) And they may, in particular, make provision for works to be treated as beginning or ending on the giving of, or as stated in, a notice given by the undertaker to the highway authority, in the prescribed manner, in accordance with a requirement imposed by the regulations."
	(6) In subsection (7), for the words from "charge" to the end substitute--
	"(a) in any particular case,
	(b) in such classes of case as they may decide or as may be prescribed, or
	(c) in all cases or in all cases other than a particular case or such class of case as they may decide or as may be prescribed."
	(7) After that subsection insert--
	"(7A) The regulations may make provision as to--
	(a) the application by local highway authorities of sums paid by way of charges, and
	(b) the keeping of accounts, and the preparation and publication of statements of account, relating to sums paid by way of charges.
	(7B) The regulations may create in respect of any failure to give a notice required by the regulations a criminal offence triable summarily and punishable with a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 297:
	Before Clause 253, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:("Driver training and driving instructors")
	:TITLE3:COMPULSORY DRIVER TRAINING COURSES
	. In the Road Traffic Act 1988, after section 99 insert--
	:TITLE3:"Driver training
	Compulsory driver training courses.
	99ZA. Regulations may make provision about training in the driving of motor vehicles by means of courses provided in accordance with the regulations ("driver training courses").
	Requirements to complete training courses.
	99ZB.--(1) Regulations under section 99ZA of this Act may provide that persons who have not successfully completed a driver training course--
	(a) may not take a test of competence to drive motor vehicles of a prescribed class (or a prescribed part of such a test),
	(b) are not authorised to drive motor vehicles of a prescribed class (before having passed a test of competence to drive them) by a provisional licence (or by section 98(2) or 99A(5) of this Act),
	(c) are not granted a licence authorising the driving of motor vehicles of a prescribed class by virtue of regulations under section 89(6)(b) or (c) of this Act, or
	(d) are not authorised to drive motor vehicles of a prescribed class in prescribed circumstances (despite having passed a test of competence to drive them).
	(2) But a person is exempt from provision made by virtue of subsection (1)(b), (c) or (d) above if he is undergoing training on a driver training course and is driving a motor vehicle as part of the training.
	(3) And regulations under section 99ZA of this Act may include provision exempting persons from any provision made by virtue of subsection (1) above in other circumstances; and regulations including such provision may (in particular)--
	(a) limit an exemption to persons in prescribed circumstances,
	(b) limit an exemption to a prescribed period or in respect of driving in a prescribed area,
	(c) attach conditions to an exemption, and
	(d) regulate applications for an exemption.
	(4) Regulations under section 99ZA of this Act may include provision for the evidencing by a person of his being within--
	(a) the exemption specified in subsection (2) above, or
	(b) any exemption provided by virtue of subsection (3) above.
	(5) Regulations under section 99ZA of this Act may provide that a driver training course is not to be taken into account for the purposes of the regulations if it was completed before such time as is prescribed.
	Driver training courses: supplementary.
	99ZC.--(1) Regulations under section 99ZA of this Act may include--
	(a) provision about the nature of driver training courses,
	(b) provision for the approval by the Secretary of State of persons providing such courses and the withdrawal of approvals (including provision for appeals against refusal and withdrawal of approvals) and provision for exemptions from any requirement of approval,
	(c) provision for the training or assessment, or the supervision of the training or assessment, of persons providing driver training courses,
	(d) provision setting the maximum amount of any charges payable by persons undergoing such courses, and
	(e) provision for the evidencing of the successful completion of such courses.
	(2) Such regulations may include provision for the charging of reasonable fees in respect of the exercise of any function conferred or imposed on the Secretary of State by such regulations.
	(3) Such regulations may make different provision--
	(a) for different classes of motor vehicles,
	(b) for different descriptions of persons, or
	(c) otherwise for different circumstances."").

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 297 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 298 to 301. These amendments deal with the subject of driver training and driver instruction.
	The main purpose of the government amendments is two-fold; that is, to be able to prescribe compulsory driver training courses and to improve the supervision and appeal arrangements for approved driving instructors. Amendment No. 297 owes a lot to earlier amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and we discussed those issues in Committee. It was useful for her to take that initiative and to address what is an important dimension of our road safety strategy; that is, the improvement of driver instruction and the conduct of approved driving instructors. Amendment No. 297 deals with issues that arose in relation to her earlier amendment to make it more compatible with road traffic legislation and much of this, therefore, arises at her initiative.
	I shall deal first with driver training courses. As part of our efforts to raise driving standards, all of which were set out in our road safety strategy, we wish to be able to introduce training schemes for users of different classes of motor vehicle. In particular, we wish to ensure that those learning to drive lorries and buses complete a syllabus that covers the relevant core competencies.
	Amendments Nos. 297 and paragraphs 2 to 6 of Amendment No. 301 replace the existing power that enables us to prescribe compulsory basic training courses for learner motorcyclists and moped riders. That power was introduced in 1990 and is generally agreed to have raised training standards and reduced road traffic accidents in that sector. We wish to be able to extend that approach to drivers of other types of motor vehicles.
	The introduction of driver training schemes will be by regulations. Those regulations will set out in detail the content of training courses, the approval of the training bodies and the certification of individual instructors. We shall have flexibility when the training takes place within the testing and licensing process. Where, as in most cases, learners are subject to an accompanying driver rule, we envisage satisfactory completion of training as a condition of being eligible to take a driving test.
	The power to make regulations under that head will enable us to prescribe training requirements for people who have a provisional licence and who have some road experience, but who need structured training before they take a test. Regulations under head (b) will re-enact the current provisions about compulsory basic training for learner motorcyclists to be introduced before a person can use another type of provisional licence.
	Under head (c) we will deal with the situation in which a person passes a driving test in one type of vehicle and automatically obtains entitlement to drive another; for example, successfully passing a motor car test carries with it the right to a moped licence. There are road safety implications in that regard and we want to ensure that anybody using a moped on that entitlement first undertakes basic rider training.
	Under head (d), the provisions prescribe a training obligation before a person can drive motor vehicles of a particular class in specific circumstances. We will be able to tailor courses to meet the needs of the different sectors.
	In relation to the clauses dealing with approved driving instructors and related matters, we made it clear in our Road Safety Strategy that high quality driving instruction is a central aim. The amendments deliver key promises given in that strategy. At present, an applicant refused registration as an approved driving instructor or a person whose registration is revoked, may appeal to the Secretary of State and similar provisions apply in respect of licences issued to trainee instructors.
	Appeals are currently considered by a panel who make recommendations to the Secretary of State. But he is responsible for the final decision. We decided that it would be more in tune with the European Convention on Human Rights if appeals were decided by an independent tribunal. Amendment No. 298 will provide for that; namely, it will transfer jurisdiction for appeals to the transport tribunal. In parallel, Amendment No. 299 is intended to improve the way the registrar's decisions come into effect to provide for more timely and effective enforcement.
	These amendments move a considerable way towards providing a better and more robust system of training for driving instruction and for supervision and proper conduct of the driving instructor profession. Amendments Nos. 336, 341 and 343, which also come within this grouping, make minor consequential changes. I shall speak to other amendments in this group later. I beg to move.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's explanation of the amendments. I shall read carefully what he said. I have some amendments in this group but, before speaking to them, I remind your Lordships that I have an interest in that I am president of the Heavy Transport Association. In addition, I own and operate some preserved heavy vehicles which may be affected by some of the amendments and provisions of the Bill, in particular Amendment No. 307.
	Some of the amendments today cover a lot of ground and the extent of my comments will have to be commensurate. Amendment No. 312 provides for compulsory retraining for errant drivers. I will not repeat my Committee stage speech, but I was concerned that the Minister seemed to consider retraining to be a punishment and a matter for a Home Office review of penalties. Quite apart from the Home Secretary's questionable motoring record, I believe that retraining should be seen as something separate and additional to any penalties in order to reduce accidents in the future. I hope therefore that the Minister will retain full control of these matters himself, particularly in your Lordships' House.
	Amendment No. 320 is designed to allow the MoD's driving instructors to become civilian approved driving instructors, provided they qualified within the previous five years. In Committee the Minister was unsympathetic. In particular he referred to military discipline and unusual vehicles. Fierce military discipline and a fear culture are not conducive to the highly efficient driver training of the Defence School of Transport.
	Courtesy of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, I recently visited the Defence School of Transport. The vehicles used for driver training appear to be perfectly ordinary trucks meeting the minimum test standards set by the Minister. It seemed to me that his resistance had much to do with retaining instructors in the MoD.
	The Minister's amendments provide a mandatory training requirement for driving test candidates and rightly seek to raise the standard of instructors. I shall not oppose them but I am anxious that officials at the DSA may be quietly empire building. If we are not careful, the starting standard for driving instructors could eventually be a psychology degree!
	My Amendments Nos. 329A and 329B seek to establish a league table so that students will be able to see how good their instructor is compared with others and have confidence in him. An additional advantage is that they will tend to reduce the number of hopeless or even dangerous attempts at the test. As drafted, my amendment does not compel a candidate to produce a certificate but it builds on the Minister's amendments.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his kind comments in respect of my efforts to have improvement in driving instruction included in the Bill. He has been most generous because he has taken my original amendment further and I have gone through a sharp learning curve. One of the things I have learnt is that if you want to provide for Ministers to take action by way of regulations, you had better make certain you have a long list of specific actions which they may take by regulation, thereby excluding all the actions that they may not take by regulation. Therefore, you get through the various tests which are applied to legislation, particularly by your Lordships' committee.
	I am grateful for the amendments which put on the face of the Bill an important part of the Government's road safety strategy. That was my original motivation in bringing the matter before the House. I have only one question to ask. One of my objectives was to ensure that all driver instructors, whether of motorbikes, HGVs or whatever, would be registered. However, I do not see where that is reflected in the amendments. I may simply have missed the point and, if so, I would welcome the Minister's reassurance. In all other respects, I believe that his amendments are an admirable substitute for my own early efforts.
	I have some sympathy with the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, on driver retraining. I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation of why that remains in the hands of the Home Office rather than with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I may first respond to the comments made about my amendments and then comment on the noble Earl's amendments. The amendments previously tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, related to the registration of professional drivers for all types of motor vehicle. We have not explicitly included that within the amendments but the Government hope to be able to deal with the matter at a later stage. The complication of doing what the noble Baroness wanted in that regard proved to be too great for us, even in a complicated amendment such as ours. I am afraid that the timescale defeated us but we have dealt with the priority areas of her previous amendment.
	As regards the respective powers and responsibilities of the Home Office and the DETR, mentioned by the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, my civil servants will always tell me that that is a matter for the Prime Minister and I that could not possibly comment. Nevertheless, there is a high degree of co-operation between my department and the Home Office on this matter. I hope that in this area, as in others, penalties are not simply a question of retribution, as the noble Earl seemed to understand, but also of improvement, education and retraining. There may be a better or more complementary form of treating an offence than the traditional form of penalty. Retraining and retesting will feature in the forthcoming Home Office consultation on Road Traffic Act penalties which will be published soon.
	Amendment No. 312 falls within the process to which I have referred; namely, it will form part of the Home Office consultation paper. As regards Amendment No. 320, which deals with MoD drivers, the MoD has not sought the provision nor does it want to see it in place. Its wish is for greater integration with the general arrangements rather than seeking exemptions for its staff and former staff. That is evidenced by the MoD encouraging its staff to join the voluntary register of lorry driving instructors that is maintained by the DSA. That means that they will pass the same entrance exams. Obviously, the MoD has a major interest in driver training and we need better links between it and the DSA. Incidentally, the DSA has a significant role in achieving a greater professionalism among driver instructors. It benefits them as a profession, it benefits their clients and it benefits road safety. However, in taking on instructors it is important that the co-operation delivers instructors who can meet the same standards as others. It may be that in most cases the MoD instructors will waltz through the provision, but so they should.
	Amendment No. 329 would prevent individuals being employed to ride motorcycles before they have passed the motorcycle test. That amendment is in the group, although the noble Earl did not refer to it specifically.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, if the Minister refers to the amendment I shall not move it later.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, that makes life easier. The amendment deals with the pizza delivery phenomenon when the people employed to ride "professionally" are on provisional licence. That happens frequently in relation to pizza delivery drivers but rarely in relation to couriers.
	Rather than accept the noble Earl's amendment, with which I have some sympathy, we have set up a task force following the road safety strategy to examine all work-related road safety issues. This issue is being considered in that context.
	Amendments Nos. 329A and 329B would have the effect of enabling instructors to certify that the candidates whom they present for the driving test are sufficiently trained to pass the test and that the certificates issued form the basis for collation of instructors' performance data. In a sense, that is transparency, but it is a delicate area. We have enabling powers for prescribing certification and we are committed to better informing the public and getting better information into the public domain about the quality of many different services.
	I do not believe that it is necessary to take specific powers but, before I encourage the noble Earl too much, perhaps I may point out that there are data protection and confidentiality issues to be dealt with before we can issue league tables. I am not certain that we want to take the driving instructor profession with us in these reforms, but this would be the most sensible place to begin. Other measures of quality control by the profession and in conjunction with the DSA would be preferable. I therefore hope that the noble Earl will not pursue his amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 298 to 300:
	Before Clause 253, insert the following new clause--

REGISTER OF APPROVED INSTRUCTORS: DESTINATION OF APPEALS

(".--(1) Section 131 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (appeals to Secretary of State by persons aggrieved by decision of registrar of approved driving instructors) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsections (1) and (2), for "Secretary of State" substitute "Transport Tribunal".
	(3) In subsection (3)--
	(a) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Transport Tribunal", and
	(b) for "he thinks" substitute "they think".
	(4) After subsection (4) insert--
	"(4A) If the Tribunal consider that any evidence adduced on an appeal had not been adduced to the Registrar before he gave the decision to which the appeal relates, they may (instead of making an order under subsection (3) above)remit the matter to the Registrar for him to reconsider the decision."").
	Before Clause 253, insert the following new clause--

TAKING EFFECT OF DECISIONS ABOUT INSTRUCTORS

(".--(1) In section 127 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (application to retain name in register of approved instructors), after subsection (7) insert--
	"(7A) A decision to refuse an application shall take effect at the end of the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which notice of the decision is given (or, if any appeal brought against the decision under the following provisions of this Part of this Act is previously withdrawn or dismissed, when the appeal is withdrawn or dismissed).",.
	and, in subsection (8), for "A decision to refuse an application shall" substitute "But the Registrar may, when giving notice of his decision to refuse the application, direct that the decision shall instead".
	(2) In section 128 of that Act (removal of name from register), after subsection (6) insert--
	"(6A) A decision to remove a name from the register shall take effect at the end of the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which notice of the decision is given (or, if any appeal brought against thedecision under the following provisions of this Part of this Act is previously withdrawn or dismissed, when the appeal is withdrawn or dismissed).",.
	and, in subsection (7), for "A decision to remove a name from the register shall" substitute "But the Registrar may, when giving notice of his decision to remove the name from the register, direct that the decision shall instead".
	(3) In section 130 of that Act (revocation of licence for giving instruction in order to obtain practical experience), for subsection (6) substitute--
	"(5A) A decision to revoke a licence shall take effect at the end of the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which notice of the decision is given (or, if any appeal brought against the decision under the following provisions of this Part of this Act is previously withdrawn or dismissed, when the appeal is withdrawn or dismissed).
	(6) But the Registrar may, when giving notice of his decision to revoke a licence, direct that (if an appeal under the following provisions of this Part of this Act is brought against the decision) it shall instead take effect--
	(a) if the appeal is withdrawn or struck out for want of prosecution, on the withdrawal or striking out of the appeal, or
	(b) if and when the appeal is dismissed, and not otherwise."
	(4) In section 131 of that Act (appeals against decisions of registrar), after subsection (4A) (inserted by section (Register of approved instructors: destination of appeals)) insert--
	"(4B) A person who is aggrieved by a decision of the Registrar not to give a direction under section 127(8), 128(7) or 130(6) of this Act may by notice in writing appeal to the Transport Tribunal within the period of ten days beginning with the day on which notice of the decision is given.
	(4C) The Transport Tribunal shall determine the appeal by either--
	(a) giving the direction concerned, or
	(b) dismissing the appeal,
	within the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which notice of the decision is given.
	(4D) Where the Registrar has decided to refuse an application for the retention of a name in the register, to remove a name from the register or to revoke a licence granted under section 129 of this Act but either--
	(a) he gave a direction under section 127(8), 128(7) or 130(6) of this Act, or
	(b) the Transport Tribunal have given such a direction on appeal,
	he may by notice in writing apply to the Transport Tribunal for an order that the decision is to take effect immediately.
	(4E) The Transport Tribunal shall determine the Registrar's application by either granting or refusing the application, within the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which it is made.
	(4F) The Transport Tribunal may only grant the application if they consider that a failure to do so might prejudicially affect--
	(a) the well-being of any person to whom the person concerned may give instruction in the driving of a motor car, or
	(b) the safety of road users."").
	Before Clause 253, insert the following new clause--

TRAINING AND INSTRUCTORS: MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

(". Schedule (Driver training and driving instructors: minor and consequential amendments) makes minor and consequential amendments about driver training and driving instructors.").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendment No. 301:
	Before Schedule 29, insert the following new schedule--

("SCHEDULE

Driver training and driving instructors: minor and consequential amendments

Introductory

1. The Road Traffic Act 1988 has effect subject to the following amendments.

Consequential amendments about driver training

2. In section 89(6) (vehicles which may be driven by virtue of licence authorised by passing of test), for "For" substitute "Subject to regulations under section 99ZA of this Act, for".
	3. In section 97(1) (grant of licences), for "the following provisions of this section and section 92 of this Act" substitute "subsection (2) below, section 92 of this Act and regulations under section 99ZA of this Act".
	4. In section 98(2) (effect of full licence), after "below" insert "and to regulations under section 99ZA of this Act".
	5.--(1) Section 164 (power of constables to require production of evidence) is amended as follows.
	(2) For subsection (4A) substitute--
	"(4A) If regulations make provision for the evidencing of the successful completion of driver training courses or of a person's being within the exemption specified in subsection (2), or any exemption provided by virtue of subsection (3), of section 99ZA of this Act, a person driving on a road a motor vehicle which he--
	(a) is not authorised so to drive without having successfully completed such a course, or
	(b) would not be authorised so to drive apart from the exemption,
	may be required by a constable to produce prescribed evidence of the successful completion by him of such a course or of his being within the exemption."
	(3) In subsection (6), for "his certificate of completion of a training course for motor cyclists" substitute "prescribed evidence of the successful completion by him of a driver training course or of his being within an exemption".
	(4) In subsection (8A), for "a certificate of completion of a training course for motor cyclists" substitute "prescribed evidence of the successful completion of a driver training course or of being within an exemption".
	(5) In subsection (11), for the words from ""counterpart,"" to "completion"" substitute ""counterpart" and "provisional licence"".
	6. In section 194 (index of expressions) insert at the appropriate place--
	
		
			 "Driver training course Section 99ZA".

Tests of continued ability and fitness to give driving instruction

7. In section 125(5) (continuing registration conditional on undergoing tests of continued ability and fitness to give instruction), for the words from "undergo" to the end substitute "submit himself for such test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction in the driving of motor cars (which may consist of practical and other means of assessment) as may be prescribed by regulations."
	8. In section 125B(6)(b) (similar provision in relation to disabled instructors), after "cars" insert "(which may consist of practical and other means of assessment)".
	9.--(1) Section 132 (regulations about examinations and tests) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), for "such instruction" substitute "instruction in the driving of motor cars (or appropriate motor cars)".
	(3) In subsection (2)--
	(a) in paragraph (a) (obligation to provide vehicle)--
	(i) for "to any" substitute "for any",
	(ii) for "such a test of continued ability and fitness" substitute "any part of such a test of continued ability and fitness which consists of practical assessment", and
	(iii) for "the test" substitute "the practical test or assessment",
	(b) in paragraph (b) (fees)--
	(i) after "examination" insert ", or required to submit himself for such a test,", and
	(ii) after "that part" insert "or such tests,", and
	(c) in paragraph (c) (particulars), after "examination" insert ", or is required to submit himself for such a test".

Disabled instructors: emergency control assessments

10. In section 133A (assessments of disabled person's ability to control a motor car in an emergency), after subsection (4) insert--
	"(4A) Regulations may require a person who applies to undergo an emergency control assessment (or a part of such an assessment), or is required to submit himself for such an assessment, to pay a fee to the Secretary of State."

Review by magistrates' court of examinations of instructors

11.--(1) Section 133 (review of examinations) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1) (application to magistrates' court)--
	(a) for "submitted himself for any part of an examination of ability to give instruction in the driving of motor cars" substitute "undergone a relevant examination, or a part of such an examination", and
	(b) for "that part of the examination was properly conducted in accordance with regulations" substitute "the examination or part was properly conducted".
	(3) In subsection (2) (order for repayment of fees etc.)--
	(a) for "that part of the examination was not so" substitute "the examination or part was not properly", and
	(b) for "that part" substitute "the examination or part".
	(4) After subsection (3) insert--
	"(4) In this section "a relevant examination" means--
	(a) an examination of ability to give instruction in the driving of motor cars,
	(b) a test of continued ability and fitness to give instruction in the driving of motor cars (or appropriate motor cars), or
	(c) an emergency control assessment."

Respondent in appeals about instructors

12. In section 131 (appeals against decisions of registrar), insert at the end--
	"(4G) On an appeal under this section the respondent is the Registrar."").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 302:
	After Clause 255, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:VEHICLES TO BE FITTED WITH INTEGRAL SAFETY PROP
	(" . In the Road Traffic Act 1988, in section 41, after subsection (4) there is inserted--
	"(4A) Regulations made under this section shall provide that any vehicle so constructed that it can be unloaded by part of the vehicle being tipped sideways or rearwards must be fitted with an integral safety prop."").

Earl Attlee: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 302 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 307 and 308. Amendment No. 302 seeks to provide increased operator safety for vehicles equipped with tipping bodies by requiring the fitting of an integral safety prop. The bodies of these vehicles can be raised hydraulically, principally for unloading but also for maintenance and to deal with breakdowns. From time to time, very serious, even fatal, accidents occur when the body unexpectedly descends and traps the mechanic between the body and the chassis. From personal experience, I assure noble Lords that to work under or near an unsupported body is very stressful.
	Tipping vehicles enjoy a number of concessions, including exemption from the need for side guards or spray suppression equipment. I believe that an integral body prop is a small price to pay for eliminating a foreseeable cause of accidents. I accept that this is properly a matter for the Motor Vehicle (Construction and Use) Regulations. Does the Minister intend to amend those regulations, or will he allow the risk to continue and rely on the infinitely less specific provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act?
	In Committee I moved Amendment No. 307, which would enable the Secretary of State to relax the requirement for type approval by means of orders rather than regulations. I also moved Amendment No. 308, which would create a new offence of failing to comply with the legal requirements regarding the movement of abnormal loads. The Minister was sympathetic to both amendments. While I appreciate the difficulty of tabling government amendments which are properly drafted by parliamentary counsel, the last opportunity to agree these amendments fast approaches. Has the Minister made a decision, and will he table his own amendments at Third Reading? I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in relation to Amendments Nos. 307 and 308 the noble Earl makes a valiant stab at achieving what we both seek. I assure the noble Earl that if he withdraws his amendment we shall table our own at Third Reading which is not a million miles from his drafting. I believe that that amendment will achieve the objective.
	As to Amendment No. 308, to do it in the way proposed by the noble Earl has a number of problems and downsides. I believe that our draft of the previous amendment will achieve many of the objectives that lie behind Amendment No. 308.
	Amendment No. 302 effectively requires a prop to be fitted to rearwards or sideways-tipping vehicles. That would provide a safeguard when the vehicle was tipping should the hydraulics fail. There are arguments as to exactly how the provision should be phrased, but I do not believe that this Bill is the appropriate place to deal with the matter. As the noble Earl anticipated, the matter that he raises is more appropriately dealt with under either the Health and Safety at Work Act or the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations. We shall consider the possibility of doing something in that context. I believe that to include it here would be to stray some way from the Bill. Therefore, I prefer not to pursue that amendment.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's slight tease that possibly he will seek to amend the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations with regard to tipper props. We must see what happens in that regard. I am grateful for the Minister's support for Amendment No. 307 on type approval but disappointed by his response to Amendment No. 308. I recognise that there are insurmountable drafting problems. However, the Minister has been extremely accommodating to me in the Bill, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: moved Amendment No. 303:
	After Clause 255, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:OPERATING CENTRES FOR GOODS VEHICLES: LICENCE CONDITIONS
	(" . In section 13(5) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995, after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted--
	"(dd) in permitting goods vehicles operators to establish an operating centre the traffic commissioner is satisfied that the centre is available, suitable and of sufficient capacity and must take into account the suitability of the local public road network for the establishment of such a centre."").

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 303 standing in the names of my noble friends Lord Bradshaw and Lady Thomas. There is a curious anomaly in the granting of heavy goods vehicle operating licences. The power to grant those licences is vested in the traffic commissioner but he has no authority to take into account the suitability of the local road network. I have with me a copy of the guidance issued to traffic commissioners. That guidance states clearly that the local road network is a matter for the local highway authority. However, in most cases small-scale operating centres, particularly those in rural areas, do not require planning permission. This means that the only mechanism open to the local authority to lodge objections is to write to the traffic commissioner and raise the problem with him. However, he can take no action in the matter. That is a source of immense frustration to everyone concerned.
	I recall attending an inquiry in my area at which local parish councils were up in arms. Everyone understood the problems that could be caused. Although the traffic commissioner was sympathetic, he could do nothing about it. Even where planning permission is required, the current guidance does not allow local authorities to take into account the cumulative effect of traffic generation as a result of planning applications. As a local councillor, like a good number of colleagues I receive many complaints about lorries on rural roads. It is difficult to explain to people that the local authority is powerless to prevent a proliferation of small operating centres in their area. Lorries which use unsuitable routes cause great damage to road surfaces, kerbs and bridges. These vehicles are intimidating to other road users and are extremely noisy in quiet rural communities. Our amendment simply seeks to include within the remit of the traffic commissioner such matters as the suitability and the capacity of the local road network. Surely, that is a commonsense and long overdue measure. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I rise to support what appears to be a logical amendment. This matter was discussed at length in Committee. I understand the problems if a number of lorries use a small country lane. Any new business which starts up will feel that perhaps it is being discriminated against if it is not allowed to add to what is already there, which may or may not be regarded as acceptable. It is extraordinary that at the moment no one can make a decision and stop additional traffic using these roads. Often I detect that governments do not believe that the traffic commissioners are the right people to make such decisions. However, they are very close to heavy goods vehicles and public transport. One would have thought that there was a good deal of merit in adopting an amendment like this to respond to concerns in many parts of the countryside.

Viscount Goschen: My Lords, if the situation is as the noble Baroness describes, this amendment raises an important point about heavy goods vehicles and PSV operations being unsuitable in many areas. I look forward to hearing the response of the Minister.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I do not have significant difficulty with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. However, I suspect the Minister will say that the traffic commissioner already has the necessary powers. I have tabled Amendment No. 303A which seeks to require an applicant for an operator's licence to display a notice on the outside of the proposed operating centre. This is intended to be similar to the procedure for planning applications. Not everyone reads statutory advertisements in local papers, but those who are most affected will see the notice on the premises. The proposal is an adaptation of an amendment moved by the Minister's noble friend, Lord Clinton-Davis, when he was opposition spokesman for transport. I recall that on that occasion the noble Lord unsuccessfully tested the opinion of the House. First, does the Minister's view differ from that of his noble friend? Secondly, is he satisfied in general with the operation of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend Lord McIntosh says that if the noble Earl remembers that, it probably means that he voted against the amendment! He probably was not on the Conservative Benches at the time.
	Perhaps I may deal, first, with the noble Earl's amendment, Amendment No. 303A. Under the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act operators are required to advertise their licence applications in one or more local newspapers. The onus lies with the applicant to satisfy the traffic commissioners that he has placed the advertisement correctly and to decide which newspaper meets his purposes. If the traffic commissioner is not satisfied he may refuse the application.
	I am not sure whether this relates to the same period to which the noble Earl refers, but in 1996 there was a three-month feasibility trial of traffic area offices placing advertisements on behalf of applicants. That took place in two traffic areas. There was no significant increase in the number of representations received during the trial period. That indicates that, in the main, local residents are not unduly disadvantaged by the current system of placement of advertisements by applicants and would not be greatly advantaged by an alternative system. Therefore, I am not convinced that the noble Earl's amendment is necessary.
	I am not convinced either by the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, Amendment No. 303. We went over some of this ground in Committee. It is not, as the noble Earl says, that I am arguing that the traffic commissioners have all the powers that they need in this area. What I would argue is that one has to make a distinction between the role of the traffic commissioners and the role of the local authorities in these areas.
	Traffic commissioners have wide powers to decide whether an operating centre is suitable and of sufficient capacity for use by the goods vehicles that an operator plans to use from the site. In doing so, they will need to consider whether it has safe access and that it is in an acceptable location in terms of the environment and of residents in the immediate vicinity. But traffic commissioners can take the effect of the proposed operating centre into account only to the point at which the operating centre, or any private road from it, joins the public highway.
	It is for local authorities in determining planning applications to have regard to the effect such developments would have on the surrounding road network. There are also powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to prohibit or restrict particular types of vehicles from using local roads on environmental grounds. Therefore, local authorities--the local highway authority--have powers to prohibit access along unsuitable roads to the operating centre where a more suitable access road is available. The traffic commissioners have the responsibility for looking at the safety, the environmental impact and the appropriateness of the centre in terms of the kind of lorries that will be using that centre.
	I think that if we blur the relative responsibilities between the traffic commissioners, the planning authorities and the highway authorities, we will end up with a real mish-mash. At the moment, the noble Baroness's questions are best dealt with by the local authorities involved, either through planning or through road traffic, and not by putting this requirement on the traffic commissioners, who have a different role.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will respond to my noble friend's comment. Experience of dealing with these matters at a local authority level teaches one that there is a hole, as it were, between the highways authority's powers in these applications and the traffic commissioner's powers. That is the problem that we are trying to address. Someone needs the power to look at the applications in the context of a highways network. Under the legislation the highways department appears to be unable to do that.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the responsibilities are complementary. The traffic commissioner looks at the suitability of the depot. He looks at safety and environmental effects on the surrounding area. But the effect on the traffic is the responsibility of the highways authority. The planning of the centre and its impact on the surrounding area is the responsibility in most cases of the planning authority.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving away. It is often the case that the local authority does not need to grant planning permission because the centres are small--perhaps farms. Therefore, there will be only the traffic commissioner's proceedings going on. How will the local authority have the control the Minister says it should have when the traffic commissioner is specifically disbarred from taking that into account?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, if it is not a planning application, then a planning issue does not arise. There may, however, still be a traffic issue which is a matter for the highways authority. In some cases the highways authority may not be the same as the planning authority. Therefore, we are talking about three potential areas here. Nevertheless, the traffic impact is covered by the responsibilities of the highways authority.
	If the noble Baroness is saying that there should be greater liaison between these various public bodies, I would not necessarily dissent. Clearly, there are parts of the country with which she or her noble friends are familiar where there has not been adequate liaison. This is not a question of powers, it is a question of co-operation.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. However, I am rather frustrated that I have not been able to explain adequately that there is a gap in the legislation which prevents the network and the overall effect of these applications being considered.
	The Minister referred to the highways authority having its input, but it can do that only if a planning application is forthcoming. At that point it is allowed to have an input. But in many cases a planning application simply is not required.
	The Minister also mentioned that it is possible for the highways authority to place a traffic regulation order. But one would then be banning all the heavy vehicles from that route, even the ones that were already there and had perhaps been operating for many years. The issue here is what to do about new applications. However, I can see that I am getting nowhere. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 303A not moved.]

Lord Berkeley: moved Amendment No. 304:
	After Clause 255, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:COMPULSORY GOODS VEHICLE WEIGHING SCHEME
	(" . In the Road Traffic Act 1988, after section 41 insert--
	"Compulsory goods vehicle weighing scheme.
	41ZA.--(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring the weighing of any goods vehicle using a major road freight facility, port or premises and the provision of a weight report to the driver of the vehicle.
	(2) In particular regulations made under subsection (1) may make provision with respect to--
	(a) the method of weighing such goods vehicles;
	(b) the form and contents of the weight report;
	(c) the number of such reports that must be provided to the driver;
	(d) the driver signing and returning a prescribed number of such reports to the operator of the facility;
	(e) the keeping of copies of such reports by the operator of the facility; and
	(f) the production of such copies by the operator on the request of prescribed public authorities.
	(3) A weight report provided in accordance with regulations made under this section may be produced in evidence in any proceedings for an offence under this Part relating to the weight of a goods vehicle.
	(4) In this section "major road freight facility, port or premises" means any such facility, port or premises--
	(a) having facilities for the carriage of goods by road, and
	(b) having an annual throughput of more than 25,000 goods vehicles each exceeding 30,000 kilograms gross vehicle weight,
	or more than one such facility, port or premises where they are under common management, control or ownership, share a common access to the highway and together have that annual throughput.".").

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 304 standing in my name and in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee.
	In Committee the same group of noble Lords proposed this scheme for the compulsory weighing of HGVs leaving premises where the number was 10,000 lorries a year. It did not find great favour with the Minister. One of the main reasons was that there were too many sites and it would therefore be too much of an imposition on the industry.
	We have consulted further. We have returned with an amendment that allows the Secretary of State to make regulations which require the compulsory weighing of HGVs. The Minister does not have to, but we hope that he will accept the amendment. I see this as part of a package of measures which are aimed at making the drivers of road freight vehicles obey the law better. Many noble Lords have tabled amendments. I am grateful to the Minister for accepting so many of them, whether they were proposed from this side of the House or by the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives. This is yet another one.
	Is there a problem with overweight lorries? I have had the benefit of reading the latest government transport statistics for 2000. There is a good deal of good information in them. I find that 400,000 goods vehicles are registered in the country. They average 100 miles per trip. In a Written Answer of 20th August I was told that 64,000 HGVs were weighed by the vehicle inspectorate last year and that 5 per cent were found to be overloaded by more than 5 per cent. Five per cent of 400,000 lorries is 20,000 lorries. If they operate for 300 days a year, there could be 6 million offences a year. I am sure that better statistics are available, but that shows the scale of the problem. I calculate that a lorry is at risk of being checked every six years. A Written Answer of 4th August showed that the average fine for the offence is £300. So a driver has a good chance of getting away with it for six years; and when he is caught, he is fined £300.
	As we know, over-weight lorries cause more road damage and more accidents. Transport 2000 has recently published a leaflet which states that 17 per cent of fatal accidents are caused by HGVs; and, of course, the heavier the lorry, the worse the problem. How can the law be better enforced? In Committee I mentioned a portable weighbridge, which my noble friend the Minister thought was quite a good idea.
	We then come to the question of how many sites. We have taken on board what my noble friend said and we think that sites with an annual throughput of more than 25,000 goods vehicles is probably about right. We do not have the statistics on how many lorries go into distribution centres. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has been trying to get the figures, but they are not available. If we use, as an example, the ports, Aberdeen, Tyne and Ipswich would be below the threshold but Hull, Portsmouth, Dover, Ramsgate, Felixstowe and London would be above it. The bigger ports would have to weigh the lorries but the smaller ones would not. The regulations we propose would require the facility operator to give the driver a print-out of the lorry weight. If he then chose to go out and break the law, he would face prosecution.
	I conclude by asking: why not? Why allow 6 million offences a year to be committed, with the risk of being caught once in six years and being fined £300? I am sure that the drafting of the amendment could be improved. I hope that my noble friend will at least consider the matter and perhaps do us the honour of accepting the principle of the amendment and coming back at Third Reading with better drafting. I beg to move.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I should like briefly to add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on this matter. It is clear that overloaded or wrongly loaded lorries are a danger to the safety of other drivers. They cause far more damage to the road surface than correctly loaded lorries and they give the whole road haulage trade a bad image, a matter to which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has referred on a number of occasions. What is proposed in the amendment is an extremely important move. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically on it. The proper weighing of heavy goods vehicles, so that they are soundly and correctly loaded, would contribute to better road safety, a point close to the hearts of noble Lords on all sides of the House.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment. In Committee, some amusing defects of the original amendment were identified by the Minister. There is a view that overloading is not the problem that it once was and that the advent of 44-tonne vehicles will mean that more vehicles will tend to "bulk out" rather than "gross out". In addition, much of the traffic running at or near maximum gross weight is under the control of reputable and scrupulous operators. Good examples are supermarkets, parcel companies and tanker operators. Statistics show only a small percentage of vehicles to be overloaded. However, if operators who are not prone to overloading are extracted from the calculations, the picture might become rather different. I am sure that the Minister is aware of that and that a large proportion of over-weight traffic emanates from ports. For a variety of reasons, ports cannot be targeted on their own, so the net has to be cast wider. I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on the level of fines for overloading offences. From what I have read, the fines are often well over £1,000.
	I do not know what the noble Lord plans to do with the amendment, but if he returns with it at a later stage, it may benefit from a specific provision allowing the Secretary of State to exempt certain locations or facilities.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may refer him to a Written Answer of Friday 4th August, which states that the average fine for the offence last year was £303.

Earl Attlee: Yes, my Lords, but that might apply to a very small vehicle.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I appreciate that the amendment has been drafted with the word "may" rather than the word "shall" so that the powers would be permissive, but I have to say that it is a good, sound rule of legislation that one does not take powers which one does not intend to use. So I shall explain why the Government do not believe that the proposed scheme would be a good use of resources.
	I agree with my noble friend Lord Berkeley that it is important that hauliers should obey the law. We should look at the different reasons why they should obey the law. I suggest that there are three reasons: first, safety; secondly, the damage to roads and bridges; and, thirdly, the issue of unfair competition.
	It is certainly true that vehicles which are run over their design weight have the potential for being more dangerous than vehicles which are run within their design weight. But the design weight is not the same as the legal limit. Many lorries have a design weight that is higher than their legal limit. It may well be that they are running over the legal limit without running over their design weight and are not therefore, in themselves, more dangerous than lorries which are running within their legal limit. Furthermore, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, pointed out, many vehicles "bulk out" before they "gross out". In other words, if a lorry is carrying cornflakes it cannot be filled so that it is heavier than its legal weight. I understand that that applies to about two-thirds of the lorries on the roads.
	The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred to reputable operators. There is not a great deal of point in weighing lorries used by reputable operators. In a computer-controlled logistics system, the computer knows what each component of a load weighs and will not permit a lorry to be overloaded. Even with less sophisticated systems, there is physical weighing, which ensures that lorries are not over-weight. Safety is, and must be, the first issue but I suggest that there are limits on the safety risks of vehicles which are over their legal limit.
	The issue of road and bridge damage is enormously important. In all the discussions that have taken place about the increase from 40 tonnes to 44 tonnes, we have had a great deal of debate on gross vehicle weight and axle weight. I shall not go over that issue. However, I do not want to underestimate the importance of that or of ensuring that those who obey the law are not discriminated against by the neglect of law enforcement. We have to strike a balance. Does the proposal provide an effective way of dealing with the fairly small proportion of dodgy operators carrying the heavier loads?
	The scheme would affect many sites. I appreciate that the amendment refers to major facilities and suggests that only those with an annual throughput of more than 25,000 goods vehicles, each exceeding 30,000 kilograms gvw, should be included. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has admitted and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has discovered, there is no way of telling how many would be affected.
	Owners of such sites would have to have specific means of weighing installed. All lorries over the specified weight would have to be weighed and a record kept of that weighing. A lorry visiting several sites on a round trip, picking up or dropping off a load at each, would have to be weighed at each stop. Lorries with identical loads on each journey would have to be weighed each time. Furthermore, the system would apply indiscriminately to all lorries, whatever load they carried.
	As I have said, most of the vehicles that would be affected by the amendment belong to larger operators; namely, those who run 25,000 lorries of over 30 tonnes each in a year. Generally it is those operators who are the most reputable and who already have in place the best systems for ensuring that lorries are not overweight. The ones that are in danger of being overweight would have less chance of being caught by the amendment.
	It is also difficult to tell how much such a scheme would cost. The capital cost of typical weighing equipment and associated structures is £20,000--although I have read what was said in Committee about mobile platforms. We can only guess at how many sites would be affected, but clearly the capital costs would be high. Furthermore, the costs of operation, congestion, pollution, delay and enforcement could also be significant.
	I do not deny that overloading is a problem, but it is a problem more of road damage and unfair competition than of safety. Safety is and must remain the chief focus of our enforcement activity. That activity must be developed so that it becomes as effective as possible in improving safety. The Government, with the help and support of the industry, is developing an enforcement strategy based on targeting and concentrating on the most serious problems. I am afraid that this amendment, although it varies substantially from the one which was moved in Committee, is too untargeted to help us in that approach.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what my noble friend has said. Frankly, some of his comments have surprised me. My noble friend said that this is not a problem of safety. If a lorry is above its design weight, it stands to reason that it will be less safe than if it is below its design weight. Of course, I do not deny that many lorries are operated safely--and, indeed, many lorries are piled up with cornflakes. However, a great many other lorries operate above their design weight, whether their limit is 41 tonnes or 44 tonnes. That can damage roads and bridges.
	My noble friend did not have anything to say about unfair competition and the fact that, while only a small proportion of the total fleet operates illegally, those who do undercut those who obey the law. Indeed, I suggest this may be in part one of the causes of the fuel crisis because a minority of the smaller operators do break the law and thus undercut other small operators. That may be why the industry is facing so many financial problems. I accept that there are reputable operators, but there are also those who are not reputable. I do not accept that the dodgy operators form only a small proportion of the total fleet. Perhaps my noble friend would write to me and tell me what is the proportion of illegal operators and how that proportion is derived from the available statistics.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is an unknowable statistic. If we knew that a dodgy operator was breaking the law, we would prosecute him.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, in that case, I am not sure that my noble friend can assert that only a small proportion of operators are dodgy. Indeed, 5 per cent of a very big number of operators are caught. Evidence has shown that the vehicle inspectors, who are good at their job, can target those who are likely to be dodgy. I believe that that figure demonstrates that quite a high proportion operate against the law.
	I understand that my noble friend does not wish to accept the amendment. I shall read carefully what he has said, but for the moment I shall withdraw the amendment and reserve the right to return to the matter at a later stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 304A not moved.]
	Clause 256 [Vehicles subject to regulation as private hire vehicles]:

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 305:
	Leave out Clause 256.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 305. I have concerns regarding Clause 256 which I hope the Minister can allay.
	Clause 256 was inserted by another place as an amendment and is designed to stop companies from operating small PSVs--those with under nine seats--under the Public Service Vehicles Act 1981. The PSV licensing regime is different from the private hire vehicle licensing regime but no less rigorous. Can the Minister tell the House what is the thinking that lies behind the clause?
	Is the Minister aware that some local authorities will approve a Ford Galaxy for private hire vehicle work, while others will not? Is there any risk of local authorities straying into making decisions that more properly should be made by officials from his department; namely, are they straying into the area of construction and use regulations? I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am a little surprised by this amendment, although I understand that a certain degree of agitation has accompanied it. The amendment would delete Clause 256. If we were to accept it, it would leave behind a legal loophole and an anomaly in the law on private hire licensing, one which has caused considerable concern. Perhaps I should explain the background to the matter.
	The arrangements for licensing small buses on the one hand and private hire vehicles on the other are different. Bus licensing is a matter for the traffic commissioners, while private hire licensing is a matter for local authorities. As the law currently stands, a small bus licensed by the traffic commissioners can legally be operated as a private hire vehicle outside the particular safeguards and requirements of the private hire licensing system. Recently it has become evident that there has been a growing number of cases where operators are doing just that. We have received strong representations that it is anomalous that private hire licensing can be got round in this way. It was put to us that private hire vehicles should be licensed as such and not as buses and that, in particular, there were safety implications if they were not. This clause has been widely welcomed by local government, the traffic commissioners, the trades unions and others who were concerned at what they saw as a loophole in the existing law.
	Essentially, the clause ensures that if a small vehicle is used as a private hire vehicle it must be licensed as such. One small exception is provided to that principle. We recognise that there are cases where well-established conventional bus operators have a few small vehicles which may be used as buses to provide feeder services and so forth. But these vehicles may also be used for private hire work. For example, they may be hired out for outings at the weekend. It would have been wrong to put up a barrier to a bus operator offering that kind of service. That exception is therefore provided for in the clause. In general, we think that private hire vehicles should be licensed as such and not as buses.
	The noble Earl stated that local authorities have different licensing policies. Indeed, some different decisions may be taken between different local authorities. However, they are based on broad requirements. Of course there is a right of appeal against a local authority decision under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. That appeal can be made to the magistrates. Those who feel disgruntled by a decision reached by a local authority--say, because that decision is incompatible with one made by a neighbouring local authority--can take the matter to appeal.
	I am aware of the concerns which have been expressed by the PSV Operators' Association. However, I am not convinced by the points made by the association. It points out that services run by small vehicles can meet a need which is not catered for either by bus operators or by the taxi trade. That may well be so, but the new clause does not prevent a small operator from performing that role. The clause merely provides that if a service of this kind is being operated, it is a private hire service and it must be licensed as such, with all the associated safety and other checks.
	As I have said, I am not convinced by the case that has been put and I believe that our earlier amendment, which is now Clause 256, covers what would otherwise be a lacuna in the regulatory framework.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the Minister should not be surprised that I moved the amendment. Can the Minister explain why the then Minister, Glenda Jackson, wrote to Miss Angela Smith MP, in October 1997, stating that the Government believed that the PSV licensing regime provided an adequate alternative in other respects to the PHV licensing regime and that there were no plans to remove the option?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thought I had just explained that. A number of representations have been made to us that in the past two years there has been a growing number of cases. The letter to which the noble Earl referred was written more than three years ago. The situation has clearly changed since then. A number of cases which require some further action have been drawn to our attention and to the attention of local authorities.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I shall study carefully what the Minister said. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 306 to 310 not moved.]

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: moved Amendment No. 311:
	After Clause 256, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:("Use of weight restricted routes by goods vehicles
	:TITLE3:LAWFUL USE OF WEIGHT RESTRICTED ROUTES BY GOODS VEHICLES
	It shall be incumbent on the driver of a goods vehicle using a weight restricted route to provide evidence on demand to any police officer or member of the Vehicle Inspectorate or Trading Standards Office that he is using the route lawfully.").

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, we return to an amendment which was debated in Committee. It concerns the illegal use of weight restricted routes by goods vehicles. In Committee, there was a long and learned discussion about signage and the effect of signage in making the role of the police easier by enabling them to stop and successfully prosecute the drivers of vehicles which are in the wrong place.
	The main reason I am bringing back the amendment is that we also discussed at some length the ability of the police to prosecute the drivers of heavy goods vehicles travelling through weight restricted areas. At that time, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that the police were fully satisfied with the powers they had. Since that time, my noble friend Lord Bradshaw has sent evidence to the Minister about the dissatisfaction of at least one local police force with the situation as it now obtains. It indicates that the law is quite inadequate to enable the police to follow and prosecute the drivers of vehicles passing through weight restricted areas.
	Almost no one in this country, wherever living, can be unaware of the misery that can be caused by heavy goods vehicles rat-running through residential areas. It is particularly galling if this is done over weight restricted routes where the vehicles should not be at all. If the police find themselves unable successfully to prosecute such drivers, we need a change in the law. I beg to move.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the noble Baroness has made an extremely good point. I only wish she had included width restricted routes in her amendment as well as weight restricted routes.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, we had a fairly wide-ranging debate on this at an earlier stage, in which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, participated. He claimed, as has the noble Baroness, that the present law is not enforceable and that it is difficult to prove an offence if a matter comes to court. He has indeed cited a police officer to that effect.
	Our information and our view is that the power is not necessary. That is a view supported by ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers, which we consulted about this proposal, and by the Crown Prosecution Service. There may be some local problems, but I do not believe that it is a national problem.
	The present position is that if a lorry is stopped by the police having passed a sign indicating a weight restriction prohibition, the onus is on the driver to show that he was complying with the qualifying plate on the sign which allows exemptions to the prohibition. Any driver who was unable to give a satisfactory explanation--for example, by producing a delivery note and so on--would face the prospect of receiving a fixed penalty notice. It is, therefore, in the interests of the driver to show the police that he was not committing an offence by producing that evidence. We see no reason to change the law in that respect.
	I accept that there can be a problem with the abuse of weight restrictions, which are frequently introduced for environmental reasons, especially where they prevent lorries taking rat runs through residential areas. But the biggest problems arise where these restrictions have an "except for access" exemption. "Access" can mean stopping to buy a paper. A driver who does that before or after being checked by the police would still be "using the route lawfully" because he had a lawful reason for requiring access. But there would be no documentation that the driver could produce,
	"to provide evidence on demand",
	as the amendment requires, for what would have been an ad hoc decision to go to buy a newspaper. In such cases, the police would have to follow the vehicle through the area to confirm that an offence had been committed, which does not seem a particularly sensible use of police resources.
	The problem with these exemptions lies, in a sense, in the way in which they are phrased. "Except for access" is not a very useful exemption. That is why for the past 10 years my department has recommended to local authorities that they use the "except for loading" exemptions. These restrictions are much easier for the police to enforce because the vehicle has to be collecting from or delivering to a property in the restricted area. The onus is then on the driver to produce a delivery note or other means to show that he had a genuine reason for collecting from or delivering to that area. The police could therefore enforce such an order by stopping lorries which they felt did not have that evidence from leaving a restricted area.
	The amendment also envisages powers being given to vehicle inspectors and trading standards officers. But, of course, neither can stop vehicles. That is a power which is vested in the police and that is where it should stay.
	Although I appreciate the concerns behind the amendment, we do not believe that this is a widespread problem. If local authorities were to follow our advice on how they should provide notices of exemptions, it would be much easier for the police to enforce them. We all share the objective of better compliance, but I am not sure that the amendment would lead to that. I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue her amendment.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the Minister has given a detailed reply. Pending further consideration, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 312 not moved.]

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 313:
	After Clause 256, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:CONSTRUCTION AND USE REGULATIONS: CEMENT CARRYING VEHICLES
	(" . After section 41(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 there shall be inserted--
	"(5A) Regulations under this section shall provide that articulated tanker vehicles designed and used to carry cement can be operated at 48,000 kilograms gross train weight."").

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I have tabled the amendment in order to make some sense of a Parliamentary Question in another place to which the Minister's honourable friend, Mr Hill, gave a holding answer on 10th July. The question related to the inter-modal competition organised by the shadow SRA earlier in the year. In response to the Question of my honourable friend Mr Jenkin, the Minister wrote:
	"The cement road tanker to be conveyed on the intermodal wagons will have a maximum weight of 40 tonnes to which the traction unit would be added".--[Official Report, Commons, 12/7/00; col. WA563.]
	A three-axle, 44-tonne tractor will weigh about eight tonnes; therefore, the gross train weight will have to be 48 tonnes. Hence the reason for my amendment. At this point I hasten to add that I would be in deep, deep trouble if the Minister accepted my amendment. I do not believe that anyone is proposing to increase the maximum gross train weight to 48 tonnes.
	The Minister, Mr Hill, answered a further searching question from my honourable friend on 24th July. My concern is, first, that the figures given do not add up. Secondly, the payload of the road trailer was given as 25.8 tonnes, but the Blue Circle company wrote to me recently claiming that it could achieve a payload of around 30 tonnes. The question the Minister has to answer is, who is right: his honourable friend or Blue Circle?
	Since tabling these amendments, I have received some interesting but worrying briefings and interest from the trade press. First, there is the question of the organisation of the competition. I have no problem with the competition in terms of innovation, but the time-scale set was so short as to appear only to favour a solution that was already more or less in existence. Furthermore, is it correct that the winner was selected without ensuring that the safety case could be made to the relevant authorities? The cement trailer appears to be extremely light, even for road, let alone rail use. Is the Minister confident that it is robust enough and could be certified for rail use? Wet leaves are one thing, but wet cement would be something else again!
	Finally, what is the status of the Mega 3 rail wagon that is used to carry the cement and other road-going trailers? Is it registered with Railtrack for use on the national rail network? How many of these wagons are in existence and are there any technical difficulties with the wagon itself?
	There is no doubt that the piggyback system makes a great deal of sense. I hope that it will be possible to make some of the loading gauge and other enhancements sought by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. If the Minister cannot answer all my questions tonight, I shall not be surprised; however, I hope that I shall receive a letter from him before the next stage of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the amendment would add a new clause after Section 41(5) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to allow for the operation of articulated tanker vehicles, designed and used to carry cement, at a gross train weight of 48,000 kilograms.
	I do not think that I need to go through the history of how we have announced that we shall allow vehicles of up to 44 tonnes from 1st February 2001, except to say that the decision followed 20 years of discussion and work undertaken by the Commission for Integrated Transport, which conducted the most thorough investigation into the effects of 44-tonne lorries for 20 years. The balance between the damage that might be caused and the benefit of a reduced number of vehicles is part of that investigation.
	Now, having taken a decision to allow 44-tonne lorries, we have a proposal to allow 48-tonne lorries. I really do not think that it is reasonable to expect that we should move on in that way. There seems to be no end to this process.
	To meet the general increase to 44 tonnes, goods vehicles will have to be equipped with road-friendly suspension and have six axles, three on each unit. The cement carrying vehicles would have no difficulty in meeting these requirements. However, the weight of the tri-axle on a semi-trailer would not be permitted to exceed 24,000 kilograms. I am informed that, in practice, an articulated vehicle weighing 48 tonnes would be required to operate with a trailer tri-axle weight close to 27,000 kilograms if it was to present any goods carrying advantage. I should also say that UK road and bridge infrastructure has not been specifically designed to allow this additional axle weight.
	I must also add that EU vehicles are not permitted by EC Directive 96/53/EEC to operate freely within all member states with tri-axle weights above 24,000 kilograms. The use of the vehicles proposed by this clause may, therefore, be viewed by other member states as a barrier to trade.
	The noble Earl asked a number of detailed questions, including a reference to correspondence which no doubt I should have seen, but I am afraid that I have not. He suggested, rightly, that I should not be able to answer all his questions on the spot. I shall write to the noble Earl, and I shall certainly do so before the next stage of the Bill, which takes place next Thursday.
	We have decided to allow six-axle 44-tonne lorries only after taking careful account of the fact that these lorries cause less road wear than existing 40-tonne, five-axle vehicles. We have balanced carefully the saving in lorry miles against the effect on rail freight. We do not propose simply to move the goal-posts by another four tonnes, as would be provided by the amendment.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response to the detail of my amendment. The only point I would make about 44-tonne vehicles is that there have been three detailed reports on whether we should go for 44 tonnes: there was the Armitage report in the 1980s, the report of a Select Committee of this House, and now the report of the Committee for Integrated Transport. All have concluded that we should go for 44-tonne vehicles. I look forward to the Minister's letter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 314:
	After Clause 256, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:CONDITIONS OF USE OF LICENCE
	(" .--(1) In section 92 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, after subsection (9) there is inserted--
	"(9A) This section does not apply to a licence issued under the provisions of section 97(1)(e) of this Act."
	(2) In section 97 of that Act, after subsection (1)(d) there is inserted--
	"(e) requires a licence that at the time of issue does not authorise him to drive any class of vehicle,"
	(3) In section 98 of that Act, after subsection (1)(d) there is inserted--
	"(e) if issued under section 97(1)(e) of this Act, not authorise any class of vehicle that can be driven".").

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the DVLA now issues driving licences of similar size to a credit card and with a photograph incorporated. This type of licence will be useful as a form of identification as well as a driving licence. In certain states in the USA it is possible to be granted a driving licence which provides no entitlement to drive a vehicle. In the US, a driving licence is the de facto ID card. Does the Minister see the UK as heading that way, or are we doing something different? What is the long-term policy in this country?
	A person who is severely disabled may not be able to be granted any driving licence. In the future, that would put him at a disadvantage compared to the rest of society. However, I suspect that the Minister would have less sympathy for someone who was disqualified. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Earl asks what is our long-term policy. It is that a driving licence is a driving licence. The driving licence is an entitlement to drive, not an identity card.
	The move to a card-style driving licence, while it will take time to work through the system, will provide standardisation and will make matters much more convenient but it should not be regarded as an overriding identity card. I know that certain noble Lords on all Benches except the Liberal Democrat Benches would like to see identity cards. That is not the Government's policy and it is not one that we intend to introduce by stealth, as noble Lords opposite might say, by enhancing the role of the driving licence. Our priority is to enforce licensing law and prevent unlicensed driving--not to turn a driving licence into an identity card. Therefore, I am afraid that I do not sympathise with the amendment.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 315 and 315A not moved.]

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: moved Amendment No. 316:
	After Clause 257, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:("Appeals relating to London service permits
	:TITLE3:LONDON SERVICE PERMITS: APPEALS
	.--(1) Section 189 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (appeals against decisions of Transport for London about London service permits) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsections (2) and (4) (appeals to be made to Mayor), for "appeal to the Mayor" substitute "make an appeal".
	(3) In subsection (5) (appeal to be made within 28 days of issue of notice of decision), insert at the end "; but, subject to that, the procedure for the making of appeals under this section shall be such as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe."
	(4) For subsection (6) (Mayor to refer appeal to panel appointed by him) substitute--
	"(6) An appeal under this section shall be heard by a panel of persons appointed by the Lord Chancellor for the purpose of hearing such an appeal ("an appeal panel")."
	(5) For subsection (7) (charging by Mayor of fees for appeals) substitute--
	"(7) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for the charging of reasonable fees in respect of appeals under this section."
	(6) In subsection (9) (payment by Mayor of fees and expenses of panel members), for "Mayor" substitute "Secretary of State".
	(7) For subsections (11) to (13) (power of panel to report to Mayor who may issue appropriate guidance or directions to Transport for London) substitute--
	"(11) An appeal panel which has heard an appeal against a decision may--
	(a) uphold the decision,
	(b) quash the decision, or
	(c) substitute for the decision such other decision which Transport for London had power to make as appears to the appeal panel to be appropriate.
	(12) An appeal panel which has heard an appeal may make an order about payment of the costs of the appeal; and such an order may require that Transport for London pay to the person who made the appeal a sum equal to the whole or part of any fee paid in accordance with regulations under subsection (7) above."
	(8) In section 420(7) of that Act (regulations subject to negative Parliamentary procedure), after the entry relating to any provision contained in Chapters I to IV or VI of Part III, insert--
	"section 189;".").

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 339.
	These amendments are necessary to resolve a potential incompatibility with the Human Rights Act which we have identified in Section 189 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.
	Under the GLA Act, bus operators who wish to provide local bus services outside the Transport for London bus network can apply to TfL for a London bus service permit. We expect that the main users of the permit system will be operators of sightseeing tour services. Operators of commercial cross-boundary bus services, some scheduled coach services and some work and school services may also need to apply for a permit.
	Section 189 allows bus operators to appeal to the Mayor against the refusal, suspension or revocation by TfL of a permit. Such appeals would be heard by the Mayor, who appoints the TfL board and can direct its policy. The Mayor may also be a board member himself. I am concerned, therefore, that the Mayor cannot be considered an independent appeals body, which leads me to conclude that Section 189 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 might contravene Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; that is, the right to a fair trial.
	The legislation came into effect on 3rd July. However, many bus operators are continuing to run services under the previous system until their licences expire, and we understand there have been no appeals so far. However, once operators of all non-TfL bus services are required to apply for a permit, there is an increased likelihood that appeals will be made under Section 189. We do not want to paralyse the new system, so we believe that we have little choice but to solve the problem by amending this Bill.
	We believe that the new clause will fully satisfy the requirements of the Human Rights Act. Its main purpose would be to amend Section 189 to provide for appeals to be heard by an independent panel appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The panel would be given the same functions and powers as had been given to the mayor in this matter, and its decisions would be binding on the mayor. The panel members' fees and expenses would be paid by the Secretary of State, who could set fees to offset the costs. A consequential amendment is also required to Clause 266.
	I should mention that the mayor is required by the 1999 Act to prepare and publish a guidance document setting out his policy criteria for granting permits for these services. TfL must have regard to that guidance when issuing permits and so the appeal panel will have to take its contents into account when reaching its decision. I hope that the House will agree that this amendment is essential if the regulation of non-TfL bus services in London is to work effectively. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am sure that the mayor would not want to be the cause of a problem under the Human Rights Act. There are faint bells ringing in my head now that I have heard the Minister's explanation of this new clause. I seem to recall that there was certainly some debate during the course of the proceedings on the GLA legislation regarding the mayor's position as chair of TfL in the event of some such conflict arising. As we now have the opportunity to put matters right, can the Minister confirm that the whole of the Act has been trawled to ensure that there are no other problems that ought to be dealt with at this stage?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I am wearing my transport hat at present and have only transport advice open to me, I do not believe that I can give the noble Baroness the wide-ranging assurance that she seeks.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, perhaps I did not make myself clear: because the mayor is able to act as chair of TfL, the transport area is the one about which I am concerned.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is my understanding that this is the only potential conflict that we have discovered in the transport area. I commend the amendment to the House.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: moved Amendment No. 317:
	After Clause 257, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:LOCAL TRANSPORT PLAN AND ROAD TRAFFIC
	(" .--(1) As part of their local transport plan, and subject to guidance issued by the appropriate national authority, a local transport authority may designate any residential road within their area as a quiet lane.
	(2) Designations of home zones or quiet lanes may be made for any or all of the following purposes--
	(a) improving the environment;
	(b) improving the safety and security of the community in whose area the home zone is situated;
	(c) improving safety on rural road, especially for pedestrians, pedal cyclists and horse riders, by reducing the risk of accidents;
	(d) protecting the character and distinctiveness of the countryside from damage by traffic.
	(3) At any future time the appropriate national authority may introduce regulations with regard to home zones or quiet lanes which may have any or all of the following effects--
	(a) giving pedestrians and pedal cyclists precedence on any highway in a home zone, and pedestrians, pedal cyclists and horse riders precedence on any quiet lane;
	(b) requiring the driver of any mechanically powered vehicle to accord such precedence to any pedestrian, pedal cyclist or horse rider;
	(c) requiring pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders to show reasonable behaviour towards any mechanically powered vehicle, and not wilfully to obstruct its passage;
	(d) requiring physical or other measures to reduce traffic speeds to no more than 10 mph. in a road designated as a home zone, or 20 mph. on a designated quiet lane.").

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 318. Amendment No. 317 seeks to place the principles behind the creation of home zones and quiet lanes on the face of the Bill. Home zones, which are a well-established part of urban planning in much of Continental Europe, are residential streets in which cars travel at little more than walking pace and where cyclists and pedestrians take priority. We have seen how such zones not only contribute to a lower accident rate among vulnerable road users but also help to regenerate blighted urban streets, as well as fostering a sense of community. Quiet lanes are less commonplace, although they are being used extensively on the island of Jersey, where legislation is being introduced to give priority to walkers, cyclists and horse riders.
	In this country the Countryside Agency has three pilot schemes in which a particular route is designated as a quiet lane where walking, cycling and riding are encouraged and vehicles are subject to a 20 mile-an-hour speed limit. Local authorities are beginning to introduce home zones and quiet lanes on an experimental basis. We await with interest the outcome of their endeavours. But there is a substantial body of evidence from elsewhere in Europe which demonstrates that it is the issue of precedents that makes the scheme successful.
	When I tabled similar amendments in Committee, the Minster expressed some support for the principles that I outlined but said that he found my amendments to be over-prescriptive. I sincerely hope that my new amendments will find favour in the eyes of the noble Lord in so far as they leave the question of priority to the appropriate national authority to introduce as a matter of regulation.
	On these Benches we have attempted to use the relatively rare occasion of a transport Bill as an opportunity to give voice to some of the issues that were raised in the Government's own road safety strategy earlier in the year and which required primary legislation. It seems a pity to miss this opportunity.
	Amendment No. 318 follows on from Amendment No. 317, at least in part, in that it relates to the creation of safer rural roads. The government's road safety strategy contains a commitment to develop a rural road hierarchy, which would enable local authorities to update their current classifications and to create more appropriate speed management strategies. Primary legislation is required to reclassify roads according to their current function and quality. Guidance is proposed to ensure national consistency.
	The conventional approach to road safety in rural areas is to carry out spot treatments on sites with high accident levels. In rural areas that often leads to outbreaks of signing and rashes of paint on roads. It can often result in accidents happening elsewhere along the road. It is becoming very clear that a more strategic approach is needed, as well as reconsideration of the national 60-mile-an-hour speed limit that is relevant along most of our rural roads.
	An analysis of road accidents in 1999 showed that accidents in rural areas accounted for 1,800 deaths and that 13,000 people were seriously injured, with almost 70,000 slightly injured. That is a terrible toll. I am sure that we all share in the Government's determination to reduce the road casualty toll. The creation of a rural road hierarchy could make a significant contribution to that objective. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I support both these amendments. As the noble Baroness said, we discussed this issue in Committee. It is terribly important that home zones are given a lot more thought. Both the question of speed and that of precedents are vital to their success. I should like to draw the attention of noble Lords to some other figures from the famous transport statistics for this year. These facts apply to 30-mile-an-hour speed limited roads, which are probably the ones about which we are talking. They reveal that over 50 per cent of all cars, lorries, light vehicles, buses, coaches and motorcycles exceed the speed limit. Moreover, 38 per cent of motorcyclists exceed it by more than 35 miles an hour. We do not need to be reminded of the relationship between speed and the severity of accidents.
	The other consideration is priority. Naturally, cars have priority on roads but pedestrians should have priority on pavements. Where pedestrianisation schemes have merged the one into the other, there is a duty on the driver of the faster and the more protected vehicle to give way. I believe this to be a very good amendment. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take it most seriously. If, as so often happens, it is not quite what the Government want, perhaps he will be able to return at the next stage with an even better draft.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the noble Baroness has put forward quite a good idea in these amendments. However, as regards the quiet lanes, does she think that there should be a speed limit? I am sure that they will very often be both narrow and winding, with, I hope, nice hedges on either side, which will make it rather difficult for drivers to see the pedestrians and the riders that the noble Baroness envisages using such quiet lanes.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I very much welcome the noble Baroness's persistence in this matter; indeed, probably more so than she knows. Although the Government did not favour the precise amendments that she put forward in Committee, which were not very dissimilar to the ones now before the House, I indicated then that we would seriously consider bringing forward other amendments. In the event, we have not managed to do so in time for the Report stage. However, as the noble Baroness rightly said, such issues are central to our road safety strategy and transport Bills do not come forward all that frequently.
	Although we have not, as yet, received the full feedback from the pilot schemes on home zones, it is important to get these provisions on to the statute book. Therefore, I am in principle indicating to the noble Baroness that I accept both of these amendments but that I wish to bring forward my own amendments because there are one or two matters that it might be important to highlight. It is, of course, partly a question of drafting; for example, the list of reasons for declaring home zones may inadvertently be narrower than I or the noble Baroness would wish. As regards the rural road hierarchy, the amendment imposes the system upon the devolved administrations, which is inappropriate. We think that the requirement to produce guidance on the hierarchy within six months is over zealous. We need to have a fairly substantial consultation period which probably should be six months in itself. One needs a longer period to do a sensible job.
	However, I shall meet those quibbles in the amendments that I intend to bring forward at Third Reading. If the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, we shall bring forward appropriate amendments. However, I sound a note of caution on the home zone amendment. It will contain delegated powers which would normally be examined by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. However, it is too late for that, given the timescale between now and Third Reading. However, I believe that we are within our rights to say that the powers are similar to ones that already exist to which the delegated powers committee has "given the nod".
	As regards the hierarchy, we should be able to table an amendment to ensure that we engage all parties and deliver an effective policy. As I say, I prefer the 12-month to the six-month period. Consultation will be required with the devolved administrations. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept my assurances that we shall adhere to the spirit of her amendments which make a serious contribution to our road safety strategy. We shall debate the matter again at Third Reading.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I warmly thank the Minister and other noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment. As a member of Suffolk County Council I have taken an active interest in rural road safety issues for almost a decade. My authority is well known nationally for pioneering approaches to speed management. It is a matter of great satisfaction to me that the amendments that the Government will bring forward will enable local authorities in this country to make the contribution that they very much want to make to reducing road casualties. I gladly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 318 not moved.]

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 319:
	After Clause 257, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:POWERS TO CHARGE FOREIGN GOODS VEHICLES AND LARGE PASSENGER VEHICLES ENTERING THE UNITED KINGDOM
	(" .--(1) The Secretary of State may by order implement a scheme for the charging of foreign lorries and large passenger vehicles on entering the United Kingdom.
	(2) The scheme may apply different charges for different classes of vehicle.
	(3) Before implementing a scheme under this section the Secretary of State shall consult United Kingdom local authorities, road haulage and passenger vehicle operators, the European Commission and any other bodies which appear appropriate.
	(4) The effects of the scheme must be reviewed annually.
	(5) No order may be made by the Secretary of State under this section unless a draft of the instrument containing it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the amendment gives the power to the Secretary of State to levy charges on foreign lorries and coaches entering the UK.
	UK hauliers are not competing on a level playing field. We discussed that matter at Question Time today. A UK based haulier is taxed at two and a half times the EU average. Today the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, pointed out that Continental operators have to pay higher social taxes. However, when competing in a tough market, what matters is the marginal cost of operation. UK hauliers have a disadvantage on fuel alone that works out at about 12p a mile. At an average speed of 40 miles an hour, that works out at about £4.80 per hour, which is a little less than the cost of the driver!
	The Minister will also point out that only a small percentage of UK haulage is undertaken by foreign hauliers. That is correct, but large sectors are closed to them, except for in the general haulage market. For instance, all the supermarket distribution and parcels work, most of the tanker operations and, by definition, all of the own account operations are not available to foreign hauliers. However, their activities are significant in the market that is available to them. Furthermore, relatively modest penetration in to a market can have a disproportionate effect on the market rate.
	On top of these marginal costs, UK hauliers pay vehicle excise duty at rates that can be well over £3,000 per annum per vehicle. Many Continental countries have rates of less than £500. While British operators pay Eurovignette charges and road tolls, Continental operators have free and unlimited use of the UK's road network. In addition, foreign vehicles are not always subject to the UK's strict safety checks and, because they fill up abroad, they do not all run on ultra low sulphur diesel, and may therefore contribute to the degradation of British air quality.
	In Committee I tabled a similar amendment which was specific to vehicles carrying abnormal loads. The Minister explained the difficulties in his usual persuasive way. He referred to the difficulties of the vignette directive, but could he not negotiate with our EU partners to overcome those difficulties? If he believes the difficulties to be insurmountable, does he feel that no solution similar to our Brit Disc is feasible?
	My amendment clearly requires some fine tuning. However, at this stage of the Bill, it is designed to give the Minister the opportunity to state how he will deal with the very real problems that I have described. I beg to move.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I support the principle of the amendment. However, I take issue with some of the statistics that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, mentioned. I also have a few queries as regards the statistics that my noble friend Lord Macdonald mentioned earlier at Question Time. However, that is a detail.
	There is an inconsistency here in that foreign registered lorries which enter the UK do not pay to use our roads. They do not pay vehicle excise duty. They should be charged for using our roads under a system that is as simple to operate and as equitable as possible but also does not conflict with EU rules. As my noble friend said in Committee, because of EU rules all lorries, be they UK or foreign registered, would have to be charged the same amount. One would hope that a similar commensurate reduction would be made in the UK registered lorries' VED to make any charge neutral.
	In the past Ministers and organisations have said that the cost of doing this would be much too high and that the Treasury would not get any money out of it. I think that is questionable. It is easy to sell a kind of tax disc at ports where lorries enter the country. I believe that for years the Swiss have sold motorists something similar to enable them to drive through Switzerland. The important thing is to establish the principle here. I know that at the moment there is a maximum rate that the EU allows one to charge. However, it is important to get the system established, even at that low rate and then try to persuade other member states and the Commission that the maximum permitted rate for such charges should be raised in the future. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us some comfort on this matter.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as has been said, the issue of a vignette was mentioned in Committee. It is an issue which the Government have considered. We have discussed it with the industry and others, including at the Road Haulage Forum.
	The issue is complicated because a vignette can be introduced only in the form set out in the relevant European Union directive. Among other things, this sets the maximum amount which can be charged in a year--some £930 for older, dirtier lorries and £750 for newer ones--and provides that we would have to charge the same amount for UK based lorries. As the amendment stands, it might be difficult to avoid charging UK lorries for a vignette in addition to the rates of vehicle excise duty which they now pay. I suspect that that is not what the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, wants. I also suspect that the Conservative Party would not wish in the run-up to the pre-Budget report to be on record as supporting an increase in the charges which hauliers would have to pay. However, the amendment might result in that.
	There are various technicalities which would need to be sorted out before we could set up a vignette scheme. Although the regulation-making power proposed in the amendment is wide, it might not be wide enough to cover the necessary points. For instance, we would need to make arrangements for proper enforcement, which would mean amending primary legislation. This amendment does not provide for that. There might be other implementation issues which would need primary legislation. When a complex system is involved--and it has to be complex--it is important to make sure that the details have been thought through before taking the necessary powers; and there is, I am afraid, no time to do that before the Bill is enacted.
	We would have to consider a vignette in relation to taxes and charges on the road haulage industry. It is likely that any rational change would have to be made in a finance Act which would not be within the powers of this House. Therefore, despite my sympathy for the aims of the amendment, it will not work.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's response. I shall not argue statistics with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, when he has a copy of the UK transport statistics with him.
	I stated that the amendment would require fine tuning. The Minister suggests some large-scale adjustments. I shall read carefully what he said. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but may return to the issue at a later stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 320 not moved.]

Lord Rotherwick: moved Amendment No. 321:
	After Clause 258, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:("Stands etc. for bicycles or motor cycles
	.--(1) The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 63 (power of authorities to provide stands and racks for bicycles), for "and racks for bicycles" substitute "or racks for, or devices for securing, bicycles or motor cycles".
	(3) In section 136(4) (meaning of "motor cycle"), for "section 57" substitute "sections 57 and 63".").

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I apologise for not having played any part in the Bill to date, largely because I have been abroad. I am grateful for the Government's invitation to bring forward these amendments. As a motorcycling Peer, I commute daily to London. I park my motor cycle overnight in the streets of London. Having got somewhat soaked today, I stand in my rather damp socks!
	I have much pleasure in moving Amendment No. 321 and speak also to Amendment No. 340. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, for putting their names to the amendment. I am also grateful for the cross-party support I have received in the past; and for the past and present support of the Government. These provisions formed my Road Traffic Regulation (Cycle Parking) Bill which went through all its stage in this House last year, only to come to a halt in another place having run out of time.
	The Labour policy document, Bike to Basics, stated that motorcycling would be at the heart of the national transport agenda. This was followed by the White Paper, A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone. Like other bikers, I welcome those moves.
	By March last year there were around 626,000 motorcycles in the country. Per passenger mile, the energy efficiency of a moped is identical to that of an average stage bus. Moped sales in Greater London rose by 435 per cent between 1995 and 1998 and two-wheeled motor vehicle traffic rose by 16 per cent between 1998 and 1999 compared with an increase of 1 per cent for car traffic.
	The amendments are designed to help to deal with two-wheeled motor vehicle theft. The chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Motorcycle Group, Ms Hazel Blears, has suffered from having her motorcycle stolen. I, too, have suffered from having lost two motorcycles in London in the past five years. Many bikers, especially those in London, have suffered similarly. Around 25,000 motorcycles are stolen every year, but the recovery rate is only 14 per cent compared with 65 per cent for cars. Vehicle crime costs this country around £3 billion a year. In the three years up to and including 1999, 52,000 motorcycles were reported stolen, and not recovered. London is the capital of the world for motorcycle theft with twice the problem of any other country, and seven times that of Germany.
	The amendments will help to solve these appalling theft problems by enabling local highway authorities to provide secure parking facilities for motorcycles at designated motorcycle parking places on the highway and in local authority off-street car parks. There is no obligation on authorities to provide secure parking under the Bill, but it puts motorcycle parking on a par with pedal cycle parking which local authorities can already provide. Authorities would be able to act where a demand for secure parking exists for motorcycles. The amendments would not allow motorcycle parking in pedestrian areas but would provide local authorities with useful additional powers to help to reduce crime. I beg to move.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, as another motorcyclist--I park my motorcycle next to that of the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick--I support everything he said. I congratulate him on introducing the amendment and explaining the background to it so clearly. I do not have much sympathy with him as regards his socks: nowadays anyone who rides a motorcycle every day need not get wet. The two things that motorcyclists have now are adequate clothing and good machines. What they do not have is adequate parking. If motorcyclists find adequate parking, they require the means to protect their motorcycle from theft. It is essential to provide suitable, solid stands to which a strong chain can be attached in order to make it difficult for criminals to take away the bike.
	The noble Lord referred to a figure of 25,000 motorcycles being stolen a year. The figure is rising. Most thefts are of scooters, the use of which is proliferating because of congestion and so on. That is against a background of reduced numbers of parking spaces in some local authorities. For reasons which are not clear--the matter has been given much publicity--Westminster has decided to provide some parking for motorcycles with stands, but it will introduce charges of, I understand, about £2 per hour.
	The situation is the same for cycles. They are subject to theft. I recently lost a bicycle in the space of one and a half minutes. It was silly of me: it was a folding bike which I could have taken inside with me. I now take my folding bicycle everywhere with me, even into supermarkets at great inconvenience to myself and others. But that is the only way I can protect a £500 investment. Cycles being light in weight, the stands for cycles require to be considerably less substantial, but they are essential.
	Motorcycles need substantial investment. That is recognised. It has been suggested by motorcycling bodies to which the noble Lord and I belong that local authorities could fund such stands by introducing advertising on them. We have made many suggestions. But none is any good because there is an anti-motorcycle culture in this country which does not exist in France, Germany, Holland, Spain or Italy. In Westminster, and to a degree in the Corporation of London area, motorcycles are deemed to be as polluting as motor cars. When we were an unreformed House, a Peer using a motorcycle used to be deemed to be eccentric. I do not think that that applies any longer. One is deemed to be some kind of yahoo.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I cannot resist asking the noble Viscount whether he puts his eccentric folding bicycle on top of the vegetables in the supermarket trolley or underneath.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I am talking about being an eccentric motorcyclist. I do not think that Peers riding bicycles have ever been deemed eccentric, unless they have enormous baskets and make a point of going the wrong way down one-way streets, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, who tells us all about it from time to time but who is not in his place at the moment.
	Motorcyclists are generally seen as hobbledehoys and yahoos, unless they are Peers, in which case they are deemed eccentric. That attitude, which is not present in other countries, is behind the absence of racks for motorcycles. Provision is very patchy. Some local authorities with chief engineers who ride motorcycles or who are favourable to them have reasonable provision for motorcycle parking. In Wandsworth, for example, there are substantial stands for parking motorcycles.
	The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has done a great deal of work with his committee to examine provision for motorcyclists. We are optimistic about the outcome of those discussions and deliberations, but unless the anti-motorcycle attitude is dealt with head-on, we shall not get the co-operation that the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, and I--and, I hope, the Minister--want to encourage better provision for motorcycles.
	If that does not happen, current levels of motorcycle theft will continue or even increase. The criminal organisations that steal motorcycles know that for technical reasons it is currently very difficult to secure a conviction. The Crown Prosecution Service is unwilling to allow prosecutions for organised motorcycle theft unless it thinks that a conviction is likely. The problems of gathering evidence and matching the numbers on frames and engines to their rightful owners, as well as other complicated technical issues, make it very difficult to get hold of the criminals, who make a good living out of the practice.
	I support the amendment wholeheartedly and I hope that the Minister will do the same, as well as perhaps hinting at further support for motorcycling.

Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, as a fellow motorcyclist and cyclist, I am happy to support the amendment. It is useful to remind the House of motorcycles and cycles. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, on the work that he has done on an apparently small amendment to the Bill. He did a great deal of preparatory work on his Bill last year.
	At a previous stage I said that I hoped that we were pushing at an open door. I believe that we are, so I shall not be long. However, I should like to add one statistic to what has already been said. Unfortunately, the recovery rate of stolen motorcycles is only about 16 per cent. One can imagine the difficulties that that causes for some people.
	I hope that the Government will strenuously encourage pilot schemes if the amendment is accepted so that people can see the success of that mode of parking. Once it is proved to be a success, I hope that we can find other ways of encouraging local authorities to take it up as soon as possible. The only proper trial scheme with secure parking that I recall had a 100 per cent success rate. If the Government are encouraging, I hope that the motorcycle industry, enthusiasts and the police will encourage secure parking.
	I am slightly worried by the reference of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, to charges for secure motorcycle parking. I hope that it does not become a source of revenue for local authorities. I hope that the Government will keep an eye on that. We need to reduce the ridiculously high rate of motorcycle theft.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Rotherwick has been working on the issue for some time. If he is successful, as I am sure that he will be, I congratulate him on his efforts and I thank the Minister for looking favourably on yet another excellent suggestion.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Earl pre-empts me effectively. I can hardly say no now.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, knows, I strongly supported his Private Member's Bill last year. We recognise that motorcycle theft is a serious problem for motorcycle riders and society as a whole. Anything that we can do to improve the security of motorcycles must be a good thing. The amendment is pitched just right and it is important that central and local government support it.
	The Government do not share the alleged anti-motorcyclist culture that the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred to. We have a constructive relationship with motorcycling organisations. They support the amendment and we support their contribution to an effective transport policy. For law and order and transport policy reasons, we consider the amendment appropriate and I accept it as it stands.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, on behalf of all bikers, I thank the Minister for his kindness. I hope that the amendment will result in the creation of a large number of secure places on the streets.
	Most motorcyclists have one other serious concern: the lack of motorcycle places is leading to the parking of a large number of motorcycles on the pavements next to street lights. That is not a safe place to park them. That is the only downside that I can see. I repeat my thanks and that of a large number of bikers for the Government's support for the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 322:
	After Clause 258, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:MOTOR CYCLES IN BUS LANES
	(" .--(1) The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 3 (what a road traffic regulation order may provide), at end insert--
	"(5) No traffic regulation order shall apply to the use of a two-wheeled motor cycle in a bus lane unless specifically authorised by an order made by the Secretary of State."
	(3) In section 6(1) (orders similar to traffic regulation orders), leave out "and (5)" and insert ", (5) and (7)".
	(4) In section 6, at end insert--
	"(7) No traffic regulation order made under this section shall apply to the use of a two-wheeled motor cycle in a bus lane unless specifically authorised by an order made by the Secretary of State.").
	(5) In section 142 (general interpretation of Act), insert in the appropriate place--
	""bus lane" means that part of the road which is restricted to public service vehicles and other vehicles in accordance with a traffic regulation order made under section 1 or 6 of this Act,
	"motor cycle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle, not being an invalid carriage, with less than four wheels and the weight of which does not exceed 410 kilograms,"").

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the amendment would allow motorcycles to use bus lanes. I was surprised to learn that they cannot. The Minister will have given the matter much thought. I imagine that there are advantages and disadvantages to the proposal, which I am sure that he will explain to us.
	Amendments Nos. 323 and 324 are about collapsible warning triangles used in the event of breakdowns. The hard shoulder is the most dangerous part of a motorway. After a breakdown, safety can be enhanced by placing a warning triangle at least 100 metres behind the broken down vehicle. Unfortunately, motorists have always been very poor at doing that.
	The latest Highway Code appears to discourage the use of warning triangles on a motorway. Am I correct in my reading of that? Does UK advice differ from continental practice, advice and law? I beg to move.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, I have less enthusiasm for this amendment than I had for the previous one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, and accepted so graciously by the Government. Those of us who have been involved with motorcycling organisations through the all-party motorcycling group have always urged the Government to accept the use of bus lanes for motorcyclists as a priority. To an extent, I have been a prime mover in that. I must admit that I have slightly modified my opinion on the matter. I was discussing it away from the Chamber with the noble Earl only yesterday evening.
	As the Minister knows, many experiments have taken place in the United Kingdom regarding the possibility of freeing bus lanes for motor cycles. That idea has been met with vigorous opposition from pedestrian and cycling groups. I do not want to deal with the views of pedestrian groups in relation to this matter, although I sympathise with some of the more moderate ones that I have heard. I believe that cycling groups have a far stronger case. I say that because, since deciding to take more exercise, I have been cycling more around London and have used the lanes. I now sympathise with cyclists who, if not threatened, at least feel that there is always the possibility that a dispatch rider or a motor cycle will bear down upon them.
	I believe that the principle of putting motor cycles into lanes in order to free congestion is reasonable. However, anyone who fancies that motor cycles will cease to weave around the traffic when bus lanes are open to them is living in a fantasy world. The whole point of having a motor cycle--I have been riding one since long before bus lanes were created--is to get to the front of the queue as quickly as possible. That can be done perfectly satisfactorily by going through or around traffic provided that one is not aggressive.
	Noble Lords may be surprised to hear that I have discovered that motorists, including taxi drivers, are surprisingly co-operative with motor cyclists provided that the latter are not threatening. By "threatening" I do not mean waving a fist; I refer to a person's general attitude. If you ride sitting up, people let you go anywhere. If you ride in an aggressive, crouched position with full leathers and kit, motorists are not likely to let you in. Therefore, the background to the attitude towards motor cyclists is complicated.
	Dispatch riders generally are not as threatening as they are perceived to be. However, I would not want to see dispatch riders in bus lanes, at least until it becomes illegal for those who ply themselves for hire to do so with L-plates. It would be extremely difficult if those who deliver pizzas and so on were allowed into bus lanes.
	I accept the principle behind what the noble Earl says. It would be wonderful if motor cyclists, cyclists, pedestrians and car drivers could respect their respective status as road users, behave with a little restraint and employ good manners. However, I am afraid that in the real world that is unlikely to happen. The greater the number of cyclists and motor cyclists on the road, the more conflict there is. The present situation can be very unpleasant, particularly for cyclists, who cannot accelerate out of the way.
	Experiments have shown that benefits are to be derived from opening bus lanes to, what are called, powered two-wheelers. Perhaps in his reply the Minister will agree that some of the suggestions that have been put forward are sensible; for example, those from authorities which say, "Well, it would work if we could put up signs which make it possible for bicycles, motor cycles or scooters to do this at certain times of the day". But the procedure is complicated and expensive.
	However, I believe that the general principle behind the noble Earl's amendment could produce difficulties. The situation is not quite as simple as I believe he imagines it to be. Unless more work were done, much friction would result on the roads. I do not know what he intends to do with the amendment but, if he pressed it to a Division, I should probably abstain.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I believe that in general the proposals in Amendments Nos. 323 and 324 are good. However, I am a little concerned that both my noble friend's amendments refer to a broken down vehicle. I understand that a bicycle is technically a vehicle. I wonder where on a bicycle the collapsible triangle can be carried and whether it is practical to carry such an item on a bicycle. Not being an eccentric Peer in the motor cycling spirit--I probably am in many other ways--I do not know how practical it is to carry a triangle on a bicycle.
	No doubt when later my noble friend decides what to do with his amendments, he will be able to tell me whether it is practical for a cyclist to carry a collapsible triangle on a bicycle.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the amendment does not provide that a warning triangle must be carried. It simply seeks to prevent the Minister saying that it should not be used.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment No. 322 in the name of my noble friend Lord Attlee. It is obvious that I should do so after what I said previously. I remember raising the subject of motor cycles in bus lanes at Starred Questions about three years ago and hearing terrible groans from all around the House. When the matter was raised more recently, we did not appear to hear those groans. When I asked a colleague, he informed me that the reason was quite simple: it was because there were fewer hereditary Peers around.
	I hope that there will now be more support for the idea of motor cyclists using bus lanes. As a motor cyclist, I know full well that the best way to move quickly around London is not with speed, but with care about where I position myself. If one travels slowly, with great planning one will always go faster than the person who travels at 300 miles per hour. It is obvious that slower scooters often beat the most powerful motor cycles, even though, when one travels from one traffic light to the next, the most powerful motor cycles always seem to be going faster.
	I believe that much advantage would be gained by allowing motor cycles in bus lanes. It would end the dangerous practice of motor cyclists driving tightly between cars or, worse still, between cars and the white line next to the opposing traffic. It would put them in a much quieter area of the road and away from the contentious area.
	Like the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, I believe that tremendous sympathy exists on the roads for motor cyclists. I am always amazed at the number of car drivers who will make way for a motor cyclist as he travels past. That seems to happen more and more often. I hope that the Minister will support the amendment.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, as a cyclist, I do not like this amendment very much. I was a little confused by some of the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. I was not sure whether he was proposing that motor cyclists should be able to travel in bus lanes if they were not plying for hire or were not delivering pizzas. I believe that that would lead to problems of enforcement.
	The point that I wish to make is that you feel safer by cycling in a bus lane because the only vehicle that is likely to bear down on you is a bus, which is usually driven by a professional driver. The bus may be a little wider than the bus lane plus the cycle, but it is not much wider than some of the wide motor cycles that one sees. According to subsection (5) of the amendment, a motor cycle can have three wheels and, therefore, may be quite wide.
	This matter concerns safety and fear. Whereas cyclists on a pavement engender fear in pedestrians (and that is to be deprecated), similarly I fear that motor cyclists in bus lanes--one never quite knows when they are coming and where they will weave--will engender fear in cyclists. Whereas cyclists and buses can co-exist happily in bus lanes, I do not believe that the same will apply to motor cyclists. Therefore, I oppose the amendment.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Viscount indicated, this issue of motorcycles in bus lanes is more complex than straightforward. As my noble friend, Lord Berkeley, has indicated, it raises fairly passionate feelings on all sides of the House. I do not think that the noble Lord's amendment would provide local authorities with the degree of flexibility required and in the long term, flexibility is necessary.
	We are aware, as the noble Viscount says, that there are a relatively small number of local authorities which have made orders to permit motorcyclists use of bus lanes--Bristol, Reading and other places. Unfortunately, none of these schemes has been fully monitored and it is therefore difficult for the department to draw firm conclusions. It is also true that these schemes have raised the kinds of anxieties to which my noble friend Lord Berkeley referred. That is why we have encouraged local authorities to put forward proposals for properly monitored pilot studies, so that we can reach conclusions about this practice.
	The Government are not opposed in principle to motorcyclists using bus lanes in appropriate circumstances, but we do require further evidence that this can work without serious danger or traffic reaction from other road users. We are, therefore, encouraging local authorities to come forward with pilot schemes, but the noble Lord's amendment would reverse the current presumption and we do not believe we should go that far.
	In relation to amendments relating to triangles, the noble Lord is wrong to say that we seek to prohibit the use of triangles on motorways, but the advice for motorways is different from that for other highways. Although current regulations allow the use of warning triangles and other devices, such as cones, flashing warning lights, and so forth, to draw attention to a broken-down vehicle, a driver of such a vehicle on a motorway has to avoid putting himself in jeopardy. It is therefore something that we would discourage. Rule 249 of the Highway Code advises drivers who experience such problems on a motorway, if possible to stop by an emergency telephone and to avoid walking on the hard shoulder as much as possible.
	Warning triangles are not that conspicuous to fast-moving traffic. To meet the distance before a vehicle arrives--as laid down in these amendments--from 45 metres to 100 metres, would require the driver to walk quite a long way along the hard shoulder.
	There are already concerns for people who are legitimately attending to broken-down vehicles on the side of the motorway. We do not want to make that worse. Therefore, we adopt a different approach in relation to our advice on the use of warning triangles and that advice is well-founded.
	We do not seek to prohibit them, because in default of other signals, a triangle may well be appropriate. However, the dangers have to be pointed out to motorists and we think, therefore, that they are less appropriate on motorways than elsewhere. I hope that explains why we cannot accept the noble Earl's amendment.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Fortunately, I am not a parliamentary draftsman. If I were, the Minister would be kept really busy. I am grateful for his comments and the fact that he is studying the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 323 and 324 not moved.]

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 325:
	After Clause 258, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:DISPLAY OF TEST DATE DISC ON EXCISE VEHICLES
	(" . After section 45(2)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 there is inserted--
	"(c) for the issue and display of a test date disc, where it is found on such examination that the requirements mentioned in subsection (1) above are complied with.
	(2A) In this section, a "test date disc" means disc similar in size and shape to a licence issued according to regulations made under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 and containing the following particulars--
	(a) the registered number of the vehicle assigned under section 23 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994;
	(b) the date until which the test certificate is valid; and
	(c) the serial number of the test certificate.").

Earl Attlee: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 326.
	These amendments concern MoT test certificates that are required to verify that motor vehicles are roadworthy. Noble Lords will be aware that it is a requirement to have and if necessary produce, a test certificate. There is no requirement to display the certificate or even carry it in the vehicle. It is, however, interesting to note that goods vehicle trailers do have to display a test date certificate similar in size and design to a vehicle excise licence.
	Any noble Lord having two or more cars will know how easy it is unwittingly to "run out" of MoT on a car. Moreover, when borrowing a car, one has to assume it has a current certificate. My understanding is that the Minister is making good progress towards electronically handling MoT records at DVLA. If he follows this route, stolen certificates will become less of a problem and the actual certificate would become superfluous, were a test date disc available. This would require primary legislation and this Bill presents a good opportunity for it. I beg to move.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should like to speak to my Amendment No. 327 which is in this group. It is an enabling amendment. I understand that where parking fines are outstanding, after a period local authorities often cease to chase the offender for payment, because it is too expensive administratively to take the offender to court.
	However, we are now in the age of information technology. I understand that if the police need to check the registered keeper of a vehicle, they can do so in a matter of minutes using information technology.
	Therefore, it should not be difficult for local authorities and other authorities which issue parking fines to pass information on unpaid fines to the DVLA, so that when someone applies for the renewal of his excise licence, should he have one or more outstanding fines against him, they can be collected at the same time and passed through to the authority concerned, thereby reducing the costs of the local residents and increasing the local authority's revenue.
	As a general rule, people have 28 days to pay a fine. Therefore, the regulations would have to provide that any fines collected would have to be at least 28 days old. One should also allow a number of days for the local authority to transmit the information to the DVLA. I would suggest either a further 14 days--which is, to my mind, ample--or 28 days.
	It is not unknown for someone to come to his vehicle, find a parking ticket, screw it up and throw it in the gutter. He then fails to reply to follow-ups from the local authority and eventually gets away with it.
	The inconsiderate "parker" is likely to be the inconsiderate driver. Inconsiderate drivers should be brought up short, because very often they are the ones who cause accidents. Even with my inadequate drafting, I hope that the Minister will look kindly upon my amendment.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Earl's amendments would require an MoT disc to be displayed alongside the road tax disc. That would not add a great deal but it may cause significant additional problems. As he hinted, we are going down a different road in terms of checking one document for others.
	The idea of having an MoT disc has been discussed before but in order to get a tax disc for a car older than three years, one has to produce a valid MoT certificate. The noble Earl may be aware that there is now something of a market in forged MoT certificates. I suspect that the same would apply to forged MoT discs. That is moving in the opposite direction from that in which he would wish to go.
	We are going down the road of computerising the whole MoT network and fitting that in with an electronic relicensing system. So we are registering and computerising all the 19,000 MoT testing stations and putting them on a central database which will be accessible to all the enforcement authorities, including the police. That will enable them to ascertain whether or not a vehicle has a valid MoT test certificate. In addition, that will feed in to the broader process of electronic relicensing so that the whole licensing system will be accessible. We hope to see the first beneficial effects of that measure by about the end of 2002. That is the way we are going, rather than having a paper disc on the face of the car.
	I do not object to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, because of its drafting but because of administrative difficulties. VED licences are currently issued by 4,500 post offices and 40 DVLA local offices. Each of those would need to have access to every parking authority's own records.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I quite appreciate that relicensing can be done at the local post office. But the forms advising one of the licence fee and when it is due are sent out by the DVLA. Any outstanding fines could be included on the form and collected at the post office at the same time.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord interrupted me slightly prematurely because the significant point is not the number of DVLA and post office outlets or the fact that the form comes from the DVLA. The problem is that the fines are levied by a large number of parking authorities, some decriminalised and some not, and no central record is kept of outstanding parking fines. One would have to create a central record of parking fines before this proposal could possibly operate. That does not exist at present. We have to rely, theoretically at least, on telephone links to all the parking authorities, or all the likely parking authorities. That would have substantial resource and cost implications. It would cost quite a lot of money for the parking authorities to have a centralised national database. Without that, there is no way that this proposal could work administratively. In view of that problem, I ask the noble Lord not to pursue his amendment.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I said that the local authority which sets the fine after a period would pass the information through to the DVLA. It is not for the DVLA to get in touch with all the local authorities. After 28 days, or whatever time is given for the payment of the fine and a reasonable period after that for administrative reasons, that information could be passed through and it could be passed through electronically. Modern technology brings these things in very nicely.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord's amendment does not impose a requirement on the parking authority to pass on that information to the DVLA. Without that, that would not occur.
	There is another concern which is that it is another incentive for anyone who has a parking fine outstanding not to relicense his vehicle. We already have a big enough problem with unlicensed, and therefore uninsured, drivers and those drivers are likely to be the same sort of people who avoid paying the fines. Therefore, the proposal would have a cumulatively negative effect on criminal and uninsured driving and I do not think that it would be appropriate.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for an extremely satisfactory answer, which was probably better than accepting my amendment. Some of his arguments were rather weak. My car has plenty of tax on it but, unfortunately, no MoT. I shall address that at the weekend.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Earl Attlee: My Lords, it is safely on a farm and no offence is committed. The Minister has not addressed the problem of unwittingly using a vehicle that has run out of an MoT or borrowing someone's car which does not have an MoT.
	The Minister should have another look at my noble friend's amendment. Electronic vehicle licensing should, in due course make his proposal feasible, although it may not be feasible at the moment. In the future it should be possible to put a flag on the record at the DVLA to say that there is an outstanding fine on that vehicle and, therefore, a licence should not be granted until that it is paid. But in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 326 to 329B not moved.]

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 329C:
	After Clause 258, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:MAXIMUM SPEED OF PASSENGER VEHICLES ON MOTORWAY
	(" . In Part I of Schedule 6 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, in column 3(a) of the Table, for "70" and "60" there is substituted "62".").

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the effect of the amendment is to reduce the maximum legal speed limit for a bus or a coach to 62 miles per hour. The amendment concerns bus and coach speed limits and tyre technology. Buses used on urban work can use heavy duty tyres which are resistant to being damaged by kerbing and general wear and tear. More important, they have about a 20 per cent longer service life. Unfortunately, they cannot be used above about 60 miles per hour. There is a way of avoiding that restriction by registering the vehicles as local service buses but those buses are limited to 50 miles per hour and there are other restrictions on their use.
	As a result of those restrictions, only about half of the buses which could use those longer life tyres do so. Although the maximum legal speed limit for buses or coaches is 70 miles per hour on a motorway, in fact they can only go at 100 kilometres or 62 miles per hour.
	EU directives require the fitting of a speed limiter unless the maximum geared speed of the vehicle is less than 100 kilometres. There are some preserved buses and coaches which do not need to be so limited but it is questionable whether they should be going so fast.
	If this amendment were agreed to, there would be no effect on bus or coach speeds because the vehicles cannot exceed 62 miles per hour in any event. But it would be legally possible to fit the more robust and economical tyres. The savings would be in the order of £2.5 million per annum to the bus industry. I shall not weary your Lordships with the calculations by the tyre industry but I have sent them to the Minister.
	I do not believe that there is any difficulty with the drafting of my amendment but it requires primary legislation and it seems that this is a good opportunity for that. I shall understand if the Minister would like to consider the matter further before declaring his position on the amendment but I intend to bring it back at a later stage. I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for explaining to me at some hour last night what this amendment was really about. Since the word "tyre" does not appear in the amendment up until that point it was totally obscure to me. But it does relate to the interaction between the speed limiter at European level of 100 kilometres per hour, which is 62 miles per hour.
	Although the noble Earl suggested that only coaches are limited in that way, that is not the case, because a simple reduction in the speed limit, which the amendment proposes, would affect quite a significant number of coaches permitted to run faster than 60 per miles per hour at the lighter end of the coach market which are not subject to the controls of the speed limiter.
	The requirements which specify the speed capacity of tyres are contained within secondary legislation, as I understand it. So it is not necessary to bring forward an amendment in primary legislation.
	Nevertheless, I am intrigued by the noble Earl's suggestion and the possible savings to the coach industry to which it may lead. I shall need to consider further the statistic that he has sent to me, but I do not believe that the matter requires primary legislation. I shall look at the possibility of making changes in the appropriate secondary legislation. I thank the noble Earl.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response to my amendment. I doubt we shall see it again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Attlee: moved Amendment No. 329D:
	After Clause 258, insert the following new clause--
	:TITLE3:Driver employment and training in road haulage industry: publication of annual report
	(" .--(1) The Secretary of State shall undertake an annual investigation of the road haulage industry to establish industry's needs with regard to the employment and training of commercial vehicle drivers.
	(2) The Secretary of State shall publish his conclusions in a report laid before Parliament 12 months after this Act comes into force and annually thereafter.
	(3) The report shall cover--
	(a) causes of road haulage industry accidents;
	(b) backlog of vocational driving tests;
	(c) training needs in the use of information technology;
	(d) shortages of suitable driving and related transport instructors; and
	(e) shortages and quality examiners.").

Earl Attlee: My Lords, the road haulage industry in the United Kingdom is suffering severely from a lack of HGV drivers. In Committee I moved an amendment in relation to this matter. Can the Minister say whether he has any more plans to increase the availability of HGV drivers for the haulage industry? I beg to move.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not sure that seeking an answer to that question required an amendment of this nature! The Road Haulage Forum, in addressing the requirements to modernise the road haulage industry, has, among other things, undertaken to look at the skills requirements in the industry, in particular driver skills. There appears to be a shortage of drivers, not because of a lack of people who have qualified at some time in their lives to be HGV drivers, but because of the terms and conditions under which they work. There is also quite an elderly age profile of active HGV drivers in the industry and not enough younger trainees coming through.
	The Road Haulage and Distribution Training Council and the Driving Standards Agency are co-operating in looking at that and at the development of national occupational standards to promote a more professionally oriented lifetime-learning qualification in improvement of skills within the industry. All those things will be considered by a sub-committee of the Road Haulage Forum. They are important in addressing some of the problems in the industry to which my noble friend Lord Macdonald referred in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, earlier.
	However, that has nothing much to do with this legislation, but I thought I owed the noble Earl an answer as he has been so co-operative in helping to take us towards the end of Report stage of this Bill before half-past seven.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I have no idea what the noble Lord is talking about! I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Schedule 30 [Repeals and revocations]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 330 to 337:
	Page 331, line 6, at end insert--
	
		
			 ("1996 c. ix. London Local Authorities Act 1996. Part II.") 
		
	
	Page 331, column 3, leave out lines 7 to 9.
	Page 331, line 26, at end insert--
	
		
			 ("2000 c. vii. London Local Authorities Act 2000. Section 48. Schedule 2.") 
		
	
	Page 332, leave out lines 17 to 19.
	Page 336, line 11, column 3, after ("Board") insert ("or any subsidiary of theirs"").
	Page 338, column 3, leave out line 49 and insert--
	
		
			   ("In section 43, subsection (11) and, in subsection (12), the words following paragraph (d).") 
		
	
	Page 343, line 43, at end insert--

("(1) Driver training and driving instructors

Chapter Short title Extent of repeal 
			 1988 c. 52. Road Traffic Act 1988. Section 89(2A) and (5A). In section 97-- in subsection (3), paragraph (e) and the word "and" before it, and subsections (3A) and (3B). In section 98(3), paragraph (c) and the word "or" before it. In section 108(1), the definitions of "approved training course for motor cyclists" and "prescribed certificate of completion". In section 130-- in subsection (3), the words "under this section", and in subsection (5), the words "granted under this section". Section 131(5). Schedule 3. 
			 1989 c. 22. Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Act 1989. Section 6. In Schedule 3-- in paragraph 11(c), sub-paragraph (ii) and the word "and" before it, in paragraph 15, sub-paragraph (g) and the word "and" before it, and in paragraph 18, sub-paragraphs (b) and (d).

(2) Other provisions").

Page 344, line 16, at end insert--
	
		
			 ("1991 c. 22. New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. In section 74(4), the words "if he does so".") 
		
	
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 266 [Extent]:

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 338 and 339:
	Page 166, line 29, after ("sections") insert ("(Charges for whole duration of works) and (Charges where works unreasonably prolonged),").
	Page 166, line 29, after ("256") insert (", (London service permits: appeals)").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Rotherwick: moved Amendment No. 340:
	Page 166, line 29, leave out ("and 258") and insert (", 258 and (Stands etc. for bicycles or motor cycles)").
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Whitty: moved Amendments Nos. 341 to 343:
	Page 166, line 29, leave out ("relating to Part V") and insert ("in Part V(2) of Schedule 30").
	Page 166, line 31, after ("IV,") insert ("sections (Compulsory driver training courses) to (Training and instructors: minor and consequential amendments) (and Schedule (Driver training and driving instructors: minor and consequential amendments)),").
	Page 166, line 32, after ("257") insert (", and Part V(1) of Schedule 30,").
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd October be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Flags Regulations, laid before this House on 23rd October, be approved.
	These regulations make provisions for the flying of the Union flag, and other flags in certain circumstances, at government buildings in Northern Ireland. If approved by your Lordships, the regulations will place the flying of flags in Northern Ireland on the same basis as in the rest of the United Kingdom.
	The political talks that led to the Belfast agreement were lengthy and difficult. It was a tremendous achievement, setting out the way forward for Northern Ireland, a new beginning founded on agreed principles and a shared vision of the future. The agreement represents an historic compromise in many complex and sensitive areas which have long been a source of division in Northern Ireland, and it sets out principles agreed by the parties which can assist in addressing such issues. But we were under no illusions that implementing the agreement would be an easy task. Some issues, of which the flying of flags is one, will take longer to resolve. The regulations laid before the House tonight are intended to provide an interim resolution of this issue until the Northern Ireland Executive can itself reach agreement.
	Since devolution, flag flying has been the responsibility of the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein Ministers have instructed their officials not to fly the Union flag from government buildings under their control. The Executive and the Assembly were unable to resolve this issue and in the absence of such an agreement, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State concluded that he must make provision to regulate the flying of flags.
	In drawing up the regulations, the Secretary of State took account of the provisions of the Belfast agreement. One of the foundations of the agreement is the principle of consent, that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom as long as the majority of its people wish it to do so. All the parties to the Good Friday agreement accepted that principle. The Union flag is the flag of the United Kingdom. It is not a political symbol, nor is it the property of only one section of the community. It is entirely consistent with the principle of consent that the Union flag be flown at government buildings in Northern Ireland, as it is flown at government buildings throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. The regulations provide for that--no more and no less.
	The Secretary of State also had regard to another foundation stone of the agreement, the principle of equality. The principle of equality requires that there must be just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both traditions in Northern Ireland. The agreement recognises the legitimacy of both political aspirations and the right of both traditions to participate in the devolved institutions, so long as they are committed to peaceful and democratic means.
	The regulations, therefore, go no further than is necessary to reflect practice in the rest of the United Kingdom. They require that flags are flown at government buildings in Northern Ireland on the days specified and on no other days. That means that the Union flag will not be flown on four days on which, prior to devolution, it was flown only in Northern Ireland--Christmas Day, New Year's Day, Easter Sunday and 12th of July. In making this reduction, the regulations respect the sentiments of the majority of both traditions in Northern Ireland who wish to work together to resolve differences and to build respect and mutual understanding.
	In drawing up the draft regulations, the Secretary of State took into account the views of the political parties in Northern Ireland, and the view of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The flags order, which gave the Secretary of State power to make the regulations, was made on 17th May. When it became clear that the Northern Ireland Executive could not reach agreement on the flying of flags, the Secretary of State wrote to the Northern Ireland political parties on 10th July informing them that he was considering making regulations and seeking their views.
	On 8th September the Secretary of State sent draft regulations to the Assembly, as he was required to do by the flags order. The Assembly set up an ad hoc committee to consider the draft regulations: its report was debated in the Assembly on 17th October and adopted as the Assembly's report. On 18th October the Presiding Officer wrote to the Secretary of State enclosing a copy of the Assembly's report. That report did not contain any agreed recommendation, but instead set out the points made by the parties and others in their submissions to the ad hoc committee set up by the Assembly to consider the draft regulations.
	The Secretary of State considered very carefully all the points made, but in the absence of any recommendations agreed by the Assembly, decided that it would be wrong to depart from the principle that the arrangements for flag flying in Northern Ireland should mirror practice in the rest of the United Kingdom.
	Turning to the detail of the regulations, Regulation 2 requires that the Union flag is flown at the seven principal government buildings listed in Part I of the schedule on the days listed in Part II of the schedule. Those days are the same as those listed by Royal Command by Her Majesty issued on the Royal Prerogative and circulated to all UK departments by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. They do not include the four additional days on which the Union flag was flown from government buildings in Northern Ireland prior to devolution.
	The Union flag must also be flown on the specified days at any other government building not listed in the schedule, where it was the practice to fly it on the specified days in the 12 months preceding 30th November 1999.
	The regulations do not apply to Parliament buildings. The Flags (Northern Ireland) Order gives the Secretary of State power only to make regulations for government buildings, defined in the flags order as those buildings in Northern Ireland wholly or mainly occupied by the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The regulations therefore do not cover Parliament buildings. It is for the Northern Ireland Assembly, through the Assembly Commission, to decide what arrangements are made for its own building. And it is entirely right that it should do so.
	We do not believe that it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to regulate the manner in which flags should be flown over the seat of the devolved administration. Hitherto, there has been no complaint about the way in which this matter has been dealt with by the Assembly authorities.
	Regulation 3 allows the Union flag to be flown at a government building during a visit by a head of state other than Her Majesty the Queen.
	Regulation 4 requires that the Royal Standard is flown at a government building during a visit by Her Majesty the Queen. As is the requirement in the rest of the UK, the Royal Standard is to be flown only while Her Majesty is in the building and must be flown in a superior position to the Union flag if the Union flag is also flown during the visit.
	Regulation 6 requires that the Union flag is flown at half mast at the specified government buildings following the death of a member of the Royal Family, or of a serving or former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
	Regulation 7 provides that where the Union flag is required or permitted to be flown on the specified buildings on the specified days, it may also be flown at any other government buildings on the same day and in the same manner.
	Regulation 8 allows the European flag to be flown alongside the Union flag on Europe Day, at a government building not specified in Part I of the schedule. It also allows the national flag of a visiting head of state to be flown alongside the Union flag on the occasion of a visit by a head of state other than Her Majesty, at a government building other than that or those being visited.
	Regulation 9 prohibits the flying of flags on government buildings other than as provided for by the regulations. That means that the Union flag may not be flown on days which are not specified in the regulations.
	I believe that these regulations are consistent both with the principles of the Belfast agreement and with the wishes of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, from both traditions, who wish to see flag flying handled in a sensitive, respectful and, above all, non-provocative way. The regulations properly recognise Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom, while respecting the concerns of those who hold to a different identity and aspiration. What we are seeking to achieve is mutual respect, both for the flying of the Union flag--and other flags as provided in the regulations--and for those who hold to a different political aspiration by limiting the flying of the Union flag to reflect practice in the rest of the United Kingdom. The flying of the Union flag to provoke others shows no respect for that flag.
	We hope very much that the Northern Ireland Executive will be able to find an agreed solution to this issue, making these regulations unnecessary. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has already given an undertaking that, should the Executive reach agreement, he will revoke the regulations. I am happy to repeat that commitment to this House. The regulations are intended to help reduce tension over this issue, so that the Executive can agree a way forward. If the Executive succeeds in doing so, I shall be happy to return to this House to seek approval to revoke the Regulations. I commend the regulations to the House.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd October be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this order before the House tonight. On reflection, it is sad. But it is not disastrous. Devolution in Northern Ireland has happened; Stormont is up and running; and most people are pleased about that. The fact that on this occasion Stormont and the Assembly were unable to make this particularly difficult decision and bring forward a Bill to decide how and what flags should be flown is understandable to those of us who know and study Northern Ireland politics.
	The only point I want to make, to be provocative, is that we only need look behind the first page to see who the mischief makers were. It is unfortunate that members of the republican movement took up ministerial posts within Stormont as part of the government process of part of Her Majesty's Kingdom but could not bring themselves to reach agreement with their colleagues on the flags issue. In the light of that I congratulate the Government, in particular the Secretary of State, on grasping this nettle and giving us the leadership we expect from Her Majesty's Government in laying down these draft regulations that we are debating tonight.
	The regulations are right. They bring Northern Ireland in line with the United Kingdom. They ensure that the Union flag is flown on government buildings on occasions where in the rest of the United Kingdom it would be expected to be flown. They ensure that the Unionist population are quite clear and have no argument about the sovereignty of the government of the Province.
	I pose two questions to the Minister. The first relates to the reason the Secretary of State in another place rather than the Assembly had to make these regulations. As the Minister said, Sinn Fein instructed its officials to pull down the Union flag from their buildings. Can the Minister say what sanctions are laid down should, despite this order being passed in your Lordships' House and through this Parliament, they continue on the same road?
	The second question is more light hearted and I hope will be easier to answer. As I understand it, the government buildings--seven in all--where the Union flag is to be flown are clearly designated. Is there anything in the order which covers the movement of the institutions currently in those buildings? If a Union flag is currently flown on a building which houses, for instance, the DoE, and if for some reason in the future the DoE moves from that building, I hope that it will not leave the Union flag behind. I shall be interested to know whether that is covered.
	In general, I welcome the order. Perhaps the best advice one can give--going into the detail in a light-hearted way--to those people managing public buildings where national flags are flown is to provide only one flagpole.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I rise from these Benches to support the order before us this evening. In the document we received from the Northern Ireland Assembly we again read of the deeply divided society, and it is tragic that what seems to many of us a simple matter of flying a flag is such a problem in Northern Ireland. But we know that it is.
	We want to pay tribute to the Northern Ireland Assembly for having six meetings on the issue and tackling it. Unfortunately, it has not been able to come forward with a united recommendation. It is my belief that the issue would be better settled in Northern Ireland by the people of Northern Ireland. I hope and trust that the regulations are an interim position.
	I should like to think that flags could be constitutional; they could be diverse but unifying. We could examine where there could be unity. Could there be unity in the flag of St Patrick? Could there be unity in flying the flag of Europe? Could there be unity in a Northern Ireland flag? Indeed, would it be worth while for those in Northern Ireland to have a competition to design a flag under which people in Northern Ireland can unite?
	For the moment, we are faced with the regulations, which we on these Benches support. However, I hope that they represent an interim position and that the matter can be resolved in Northern Ireland.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and many others in the Chamber, I am saddened that we have to discuss the flying of a national flag here tonight. The fact of when and where the national flag is flown in the United Kingdom should not be in issue. As one who lives in Northern Ireland, I deeply believe that it should not be decided by Northern Ireland.
	The national flag should be a national issue--a constitutional issue--it should not be a devolved matter for a regional Minister. Why was it devolved? Was much thought given to the devolution of a quintessential national issue?
	In any event, the parties who signed the Belfast agreement--unionists, nationalists, loyalists and republicans--accepted the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's constitutional position within the United Kingdom. I am disappointed that some of those signatory parties have acted immaturely since the agreement with respect to their obligations to the agreement and have created issues such as flags.
	That we are even discussing the matter tonight is made worse by the fact that there are flaws in the regulations themselves. Those who have shown a lack of maturity on this issue have deliberately misinterpreted the concept of "parity of esteem" in the Belfast agreement.
	It is true that parity of esteem is an essential part of the Belfast agreement, but as the agreement stated:
	"the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities".
	The reference to sovereignty is singular. The "sovereign government", referred to in paragraph 1(v) of the section of the agreement relating to constitutional issues, is the British Government and it is the British Government who will exercise their power in Northern Ireland,
	"with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people".
	Parity of esteem relates to culture, social treatment and political opinion. The constitutional aspects of the agreement are not subject to the concept of "parity of esteem". The constitutional status of Northern Ireland is not subjective; it does not depend on how the individual feels. The constitutional status is a fact and one which was agreed to and endorsed by the Government of the Republic of Ireland by agreeing to amend Articles 2 and 3 of their constitution, in so doing removing their territorial claim to Northern Ireland.
	As the constitutional status is a fact, it is implicit that some visible manifestation of the constitutional status will exist. Flying the British flag over government buildings is a visible manifestation of Northern Ireland's constitutional status. That is implied in the agreement. Therefore, those parties lacking maturity should, in acting responsibly with respect to their commitments, both explicit and implicit, recognise that the flying of the union flag over government buildings on the same days as in other parts of the United Kingdom is part of what they agreed to.
	As I have indicated, it is disappointing to find that these regulations are necessary, even more so that they are flawed. They are flawed in more than one respect. First, the regulations do not apply to Parliament buildings because of the restrictive definition of government buildings. It is also regrettable that the national flag will not be permitted to be flown above the seat of a devolved government within the United Kingdom.
	Will the Minister give an assurance that if no agreement is reached on the issue he will review the situation within a fixed period of time? Otherwise, Northern Ireland will not be treated in the same manner as the rest of the United Kingdom. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly are, and will be, permitted to fly the flag of the nation, yet the Northern Ireland Assembly, one of the three devolved legislatures, will not.
	Secondly, can the Minister confirm that effective sanctions will be exercised against Ministers if the flags are not flown in breach of the order or if additional flags are flown in breach of the order? Without an undertaking to use court action against those who breach the regulations, the regulations are a toothless tiger which some in Northern Ireland will always seek to exploit.
	Thirdly, why is it that Schedule 1 lists particular buildings rather than simply the buildings where the Ministers operate from each department in the government? Surely it would be more logical to define the place where a flag is to be flown as the departmental headquarters rather than a particular building. The venue for the departmental headquarters may change over time.
	But it gets worse. Paragraph 9 of the regulations states:
	"Except as provided by these Regulations, no flag shall be flown at any government building at any time".
	Surely, the seat of the devolved legislature, the Parliament building--or as we call it at home, "Stormont"--should fly the Union flag.
	I return to the Belfast agreement for my final point. It states:
	"All participants acknowledge the sensitivity of the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, and the need in particular in creating the new institutions to ensure that such symbols and emblems are used in a manner which promotes mutual respect rather than division. Arrangements will be made to monitor this issue and consider what action might be required".
	That is the final paragraph of the section of the agreement on rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity. It is not within the section concerned with constitutional issues and does not extend to the national flag. It is questionable whether within that paragraph any flag, never mind the national flag, constitutes a symbol or emblem.
	Under the Belfast agreement, the principle of consent dictates Northern Ireland's constitutional position, which at this time is within the United Kingdom. Therefore, Northern Ireland shares the national flag of the United Kingdom. Government in Northern Ireland is devolved from the national Government here in Westminster. Northern Ireland has a British devolved government and any flag that represents it, as with the Government here in London, should be the Union flag. It is unfortunate that this matter is even being debated tonight.

Lord Monson: My Lords, I agree with the thrust of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. However, perhaps I may put three specific questions to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in the spirit of genuine inquiry. The first question relates to paragraph (4) of Regulation 2 which requires--the noble and learned Lord used the word "allows"--the "European flag", which presumably means the European Union flag, to be flown in addition to the Union flag on Europe Day. Does a parallel obligation apply to government buildings in England, Scotland and Wales?
	My second question is related to Regulation 3 which provides that the Union flag may be flown on the occasion of a visit by another head of state. Why "may"? Surely, it would be most unusual, as well as highly discourteous to the visiting head of state, for the Union flag not to be flown on such an occasion.
	I turn finally to Regulation 9 which provides:
	"Except as provided by these Regulations, no flag shall be flown at any government building at any time".
	To anyone who comes from the United States, where the Stars and Stripes flutters over all public buildings 365 days a year, that must seem quite extraordinary. One is talking about an obligation to limit the flying of the national flag perhaps to 19 or 20 days a year, allowing for the occasional royal visit. Will the noble and learned Lord comment on that when he replies?

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, having been untypically critical in recent months of certain aspects of the Government's policy on Northern Ireland, it is only fair that I should stay tonight to congratulate the Secretary of State upon these regulations. I do not for a minute suppose that by doing so I shall make his day.
	The Government rightly seek reconciliation in Northern Ireland. I take care not to say "produce reconciliation" because that must be found within those who are divided within the community of the Province. All of us in this House wish them well. However, we know that Northern Ireland is a place in which flags and emblems are wont to have highly emotive and generally opposing connotations for each side of the community. Therefore, I do not find it surprising, but share the regret already expressed by noble Lords, that Her Majesty's Government have tabled these regulations tonight. It is not surprising for the reasons which all of us who have had the privilege of studying, let alone living in, Northern Ireland well understand.
	However, to deny the exclusive legitimacy of the Union flag when discussing what flags, if any, shall be flown from the public buildings of this Union is to deny even-handedness. There can be no reconciliation in Northern Ireland unless Her Majesty's Government are seen to act even-handedly. They would not be even-handed if they permitted the flying of the tricolour alongside the Union flag, because that would be seen as denying the exclusive legitimacy of the flag in what is by law and--of much more recent significance--the consent and action of all those who support the Good Friday agreement, part of the Union. The agreement is the latest, and perhaps most vivid, instrument to uphold the principle of consent in the context of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. In those circumstances, to argue and demand that the tricolour should have parity of esteem (to coin a phrase) with the Union flag is to act provocatively and in breach of the spirit of the Good Friday agreement.
	I make one additional point on which perhaps I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. These regulations have been very skilfully drafted and are not all one way; that is, the Unionist way. They exclude certain days when the flag has been habitually flown in Northern Ireland which are not days of obligation in the rest of the United Kingdom. I for one was always uncomfortable with the flying of the Union flag on 12th July. I believed that that served to make it perhaps a partisan flag, whereas it is, and should be, a flag that symbolises the Union under which all who have respect for the law can stand comfortably. Therefore, I believe that that is a skilful and legitimate way to demonstrate even-handedness in these regulations.
	In response to the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, I do not believe that the Union flag is flown over this Parliament as a parliament building--I have given thought to this matter only in the past minute or so--I suspect that the Union flag flies over this building whether or not Parliament is sitting, because it is a royal palace. I am prepared to be told that I am wrong about that. However, I do not believe that there is any departure from uniformity with the rest of the United Kingdom if the flag does not fly over the Stormont building.
	There must have been much pressure on the Secretary of State from those who oppose the regulations, and I diffidently congratulate him on facing it down.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, my views are broadly in line with the thinking of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. I echo his congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, on the intelligent and tactful way in which he introduced the regulations.
	Like all other noble Lords, I note that the Northern Ireland Assembly could not reach agreement on this issue. Given the Assembly's composition, that failure was hardly surprising. Perhaps the lesson is that it is very unwise to involve the Assembly in matters which lie entirely within the responsibilities of the Secretary of State, responsible as he is to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Having consulted--admittedly in default and not for the want of trying--and having received conflicting advice from the parties in the Assembly, the Secretary of State finds himself quite unnecessarily in a no-win situation--because in Northern Ireland, as in many other areas, there are questions which cannot safely be asked.
	In addition, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, a serious constitutional point is involved. Under constitutional law Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom. Surely any matter which touches on that fact is solely within the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament of the United Kingdom. Therefore, it follows that in the Northern Ireland Assembly no Minister in a devolved body has any legal right or function and should not become involved in any issue such as that which is legally discussed by your Lordships today.
	It is not a question of possessiveness on the part of Her Majesty's Government and Parliament. There is the damage created by inviting the Northern Ireland Assembly to become entangled in arguments over issues on which it can take no actions anyway. It should be appropriate for the Secretary of State to make available to the Assembly the equivalent, perhaps, of a White Paper as a matter of courtesy, but not necessarily to consult. If one consults, one is engaged in a divisive exercise and one gets conflicting answers. To go beyond that matter of courtesy of the publication of the equivalent of a White Paper for the Assembly would lead to damaged relations within the Assembly. It could cause unnecessary friction over legislation in the promotion of which the Assembly and its Ministers could have no legitimate role.
	The noble and learned Lord the Minister expressed the hope that the day might come when powers of this nature might be devolved to the Assembly. While I share his hope that current progress will be maintained, I would caution against the transfer of any powers of concern solely to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. In my humble opinion, it is safer by far to retain all such constitutional matters within the sovereign Parliament, where divisive influences are not generally generated.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I, too, find myself in the most agreeable situation of being able to welcome the regulations most warmly. I should like also to pay my tribute to the courage and good sense of the Secretary of State. This is a very wise decision. It must have been a hard decision to take. As a result, I daresay he will continue to receive a good deal of flak. But I am sure that he has done the right thing. It is an enormous pleasure to be able to welcome something so positive.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, I suppose anyone who visits Northern Ireland and is not familiar with that part of the country will be amazed at the widespread use of flags, flying not just from public buildings but from private houses. In that respect, Northern Ireland is clearly different from other parts of the United Kingdom. It is not just flags, but kerb stones, graffiti on gable ends and so on. It is surprising at how prevalent is the habit of trying to demonstrate one's allegiance by flags and other symbols. Therefore, I appreciate the difficulty that the Secretary of State was in in trying to deal with this issue in the absence of any clear lead from the Assembly or the Executive.
	I share the welcome given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, to the sensible decision not to fly the flag on 12th July. I am bound to say that the United Kingdom is no longer uniform in respect of flying flags. In Scotland a decision was made to fly the flag on fewer occasions than those listed in the regulations. To express a personal view--I do not wish any disrespect to the individuals concerned--I see that in Scotland the flag is flown on fewer occasions because some of the lesser members of the Royal Family do not have flags flown on their particular days. I was surprised that we have so many days in England. I was not aware that some of the members of the Royal Family have flags flown on their birthdays. I wonder whether it is not worth thinking about that as well in the context of the wider United Kingdom. I say that without wishing any disrespect to the individuals concerned; but we fly the flag a good deal.
	I read with interest the report of the Assembly and its failure to agree. I noticed that the SDLP made one interesting suggestion; namely, that both flags--the Union Jack and the tricolour--may be flown on occasions when there are meetings of the North-South Ministerial Council, of north/south bodies and of the British Irish Council. Given that the regulations contain provision for flying the flag of another country when a visiting head of state happens to be present, that seems worth thinking about. Therefore, the SDLP's suggestion has merit.
	I notice that the Northern Ireland Assembly, without any difficulty, devised its own logo--the flax flower. I am not aware of any dissent. I suppose that what Northern Ireland needs is its own flag, as well as the Union Jack. I am surprised that the Assembly did not think of flying the flag of Saint Patrick on such occasions. I thought Saint Patrick was acceptable throughout the whole community. So I am a little surprised that the report of the Assembly, in so far as I have looked through it, does not contain any reference to the flag of Saint Patrick.

Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the Union flag incorporates the cross of Saint Patrick?

Lord Dubs: My Lords, certainly it does. I learnt that when I was a Boy Scout many years ago. Nevertheless, I was pondering out loud as to why the flag of Saint Patrick is not used, given that the flag of Saint George is used on occasions in England. Perhaps it is not used in an official capacity, but certainly I have seen it used on occasions. Having said that, it is not for us to devise flags and symbols. Essentially, the issue is one which we would wish the people of Northern Ireland and their politicians to resolve. I hope they will soon be able to decide such matters for themselves without having them imposed upon them. I appreciate the difficulties of the Secretary of State and I think he has moved forward in the only way possible.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for the support for the regulations which comes from almost all sides of the House.
	Perhaps I may deal with the specific questions raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, asked why it was the Secretary of State and not the Assembly which made the decision. The reason is that the Assembly cannot reach an agreed solution. My right honourable friend in another place has already given an undertaking that, if the Executive is able to reach agreement, he will revoke the regulations. The noble Lord, perhaps less seriously--as he put it--raised the question of what will happen if one of the government buildings moves. If one of the government building moves it will no longer be a government building, so the obligations in relation to flags will not remain in respect of that building. The Secretary of State's order-making power is enough to add additional buildings if that proves to be necessary.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, raised a number of specific points. First, he asked me to give an undertaking in relation to a review. I have already said that my right honourable friend in another place has indicated that if the Executive reaches agreement, he will come back to this House and revoke the regulations.
	Secondly, the noble Lord raised the question of enforcement. There is in the primary regulation under which these regulations were made no power to provide sanctions. It is unlikely that in reality this clear regulation will be disobeyed. However, if it is disobeyed by anyone, it will be a matter for the courts to decide what is the most effective way to enforce the terms of the regulation.
	The noble Lord also asked whether departmental headquarters would be a better criterion for determining specified buildings. We believe that listing the specified buildings is a much clearer definition. I said in answer to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, that if there is a change that can be dealt with by an amendment to the terms of the regulation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, raised the question of the Parliament buildings. The regulation does not cover Parliament buildings because they are not government buildings. We cannot include Parliament buildings in the regulation at all; nor do we seek to do so. That is a matter for the Assembly to decide for itself. The regulations do not prevent the flying of the Union flag over Parliament buildings because they do not apply to it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked why the regulations do not require the flying of the flag on the visit of a foreign head of state. We believe that it would be better to allow that to remain permissive. In certain circumstances, requiring the Union flag to be flown from the building visited could cause disruption. The noble Lord also asked whether the European flag has to fly on any United Kingdom building. I do not know the answer to that question. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord in respect of that point.
	The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, suggested a consultative document on flags, arguing that the Assembly should have no role in relation to the matter. As has been made clear, the powers on flag flying are devolved not just in relation to Northern Ireland but in relation to Scotland and Wales as well. The Secretary of State is able to make decisions only because of the special powers given to him while the Assembly was suspended. We would prefer that the Northern Ireland Assembly itself determined these issues. However, it has not been able to reach agreement and so the Secretary of State, as he indicated he would if agreement was not reached, has determined for himself what he thinks to be the right course.
	Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked whether the flying of flags should be reduced, as it has been in Scotland. The position is that the Scottish Parliament has not yet considered the flying of flags on Scottish government buildings. We think that the right course is to reflect what is the practice in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is what the regulations reflect.
	I hope that, with the exception of the one question left outstanding in relation to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I have answered all the questions raised by noble Lords.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Immigration Appeals (Family Visitor) (No. 2) Regulations 2000

Lord Judd: rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations laid before the House on 13th September be annulled (S.I. 2000/2446).

Lord Judd: My Lords, I should like to express appreciation for the presence of my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton on the Front Bench. It has been an exacting week--indeed, it has been an exacting few weeks--and he has been playing a very full part in the activities of the House. I am sorry that when he should be having a chance to unwind, or to begin unwinding, for the weekend he is here yet again at a late hour. But I know that he feels as deeply concerned about the issues we will be discussing as I do myself and that he will therefore forgive me for having detained him in this way. I am sorry also that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is not present, although one understands why it is a little difficult for him to be here, as some of the points that I want to make more directly concern his department than the Home Office.
	I should say at the outset that the restoration, under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, of the right of appeal against a refusal of a visa to visit family members in the United Kingdom was, and remains, a very welcome development, and one for which Ministers deserve a great deal of credit. The abolition of the original right of appeal by the previous government, in 1993, was strongly contested at the time and subsequently caused considerable anger and resentment among the black and Asian communities in this country. I know that that anger and resentment were keenly felt by Labour Members of the other place, and in the place where it hurts most--their constituency surgeries. Indeed, the understandable concern of such Members was instrumental in the restoration of the appeal right being made a Labour Party manifesto pledge in 1997. As the Labour Party said at the time, and as Ministers have emphasised recently, we live in a multi-ethnic society where many of our citizens have close links with extended family members living in countries other than the UK. Maintaining those links is an important part of their social and cultural life--it is an important part of commitment to the family--and key family events such as weddings, births and funerals are therefore essential to that purpose. It is to ensure that families are not denied the opportunity to be together for such events that these appeal rights were established.
	However, Members of the other place have not been alone in facing the frustration of those whose relatives have been unjustly denied a visa for such events. Citizens advice bureaux workers, who advise more than 50,000 people with immigration problems every year, have been only too aware of the anger and resentment caused by unjust visa refusals and the absence, since 1993, of any appeal rights. That may explain why, at the CAB service AGM on 27th September this year, the 1,250 delegates present debated and unanimously passed a motion deploring the Government's decision to negate the value of the new right of appeal by charging substantial fees to appellants.
	For, under the regulations before your Lordships' House tonight, appellants will have the option of a full, oral appeal hearing, before an adjudicator of the Immigration Appellate Authority, for a fee of £500, or an appeal on the papers only, for a fee of £150. The Government have stated that these sums are necessary to cover the cost to the Immigration Appellate Authority of administering these appeals, both the Home Office and the Foreign Office having agreed to absorb their own costs. The principal concern of the citizens advice bureaux is that these not inconsiderable sums will act to deter some wronged applicants from exercising their right of appeal. That concern is shared by, among others, the Commission for Racial Equality, the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the Legal Action Group, the Immigration Advisory Service, the National Assembly Against Racism, and the Law Society--all are bodies working in the frontline of these issues.
	Although the regulations provide for the fee to be refunded where the appeal is successful, an appellant will of course have no guarantee of success, however strong he or she believes his or her case to be. In short, there is a risk which some of those unjustly refused a visa can simply not afford to take. As the Commission for Racial Equality has noted, those likely to be using these appeal rights often live in conditions of relative economic poverty, and are normally dependent to a very significant degree on their family members in the United Kingdom to finance the visit. And yet many of these family members--and especially those in the Pakistani, Bangladeshi and some Caribbean communities--are themselves among the poorest groups in the UK. For many of those unjustly refused a visa, therefore, the fees will present a substantial barrier to justice.
	In costing the administration of these appeals, the Lord Chancellor's Department has assumed that "the great majority (80 per cent)" of appellants will opt for an appeal on the papers only, for a fee of £150, rather than for an oral hearing, for a fee of £500. Of course, if the fees remain at that level, then this assumption may well become self-fulfilling, to some degree at least. However, this assumption suggests a surprisingly poor understanding of the visa application process. In reality, the great majority of visa decisions turn on the applicant's credibility--as well as that of his or her relatives in the UK. Accordingly, if cost were no object, most appellants would opt for a full, oral hearing so as to give their relatives in the United Kingdom a proper opportunity to demonstrate their credibility before the adjudicator, and to explain how the applicant had been misunderstood.
	The Lord Chancellor's Department has suggested that the more impecunious appellants--that is, those most likely to be deterred by the fee--may qualify for representation funded by the Legal Services Commission, and that this would cover the fee. However, frankly it is very difficult to see how a particularly impecunious applicant, living, for example, in Sierra Leone, would be able to identify a solicitor's firm or agency with an appropriate Legal Services Commission contract, make an application for funding and get a favourable decision under the merits and financial eligibility tests, all within the 28 days allowed for lodging an appeal.
	In recent weeks, the Lord Chancellor's Department has sought to justify the fees for these appeals on the grounds that this "allows for consistency with" the fees regime in the civil courts. The essential point here is that the imposition of fees is entirely inconsistent with the rest of the social welfare tribunal system under which the family visitor appeals will be heard. There are no fees for any other kind of immigration appeal, for employment and social security tribunals, for disability and medical appeals, or for mental health review tribunals. The fees therefore represent a significant departure from one of the underlying aims of the tribunal system; namely, to maximise the access to justice of those who lack the means to mount a conventional legal challenge in the courts.
	Moreover, it is in my view deplorable that the first fees to be imposed under the social welfare tribunal system should impact--almost exclusively--on black and Asian Britons. As the Commission for Racial Equality concludes, this would be,
	"a wholly undesirable precedent for a system of justice in a multi-ethnic society".
	When my noble friend comes to reply, perhaps he will be able to explain how the impact of the fees on black and Asian Britons is consistent with the duty shortly to be imposed on the Lord Chancellor's Department, under the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill, to eliminate racial discrimination and promote good race relations.
	Until very recently, the Government have sought to justify their decision to impose fees on family visitor appellants on the sole ground that "there is no new money" to cover the administrative costs. In 1997 and 1998, and arguably even in 1999 when the relevant provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act were debated in your Lordships' House, this position was perhaps understandable, given the Government's then adherence to their predecessors' spending plans. However, circumstances have changed.
	First, following the recent Comprehensive Spending Review, there is now no apparent shortage of "new money" for immigration control. In July 2000, the Chancellor announced an additional allocation of £600 million for immigration control. Even if most appellants opt for an oral hearing, then the annual cost of administering these appeals would still be less than £10 million. And, of course, if the Government's prediction of 19,500 appeals per year proves, as some suspect it may, to be an over-estimate, then the total cost will be even less. Perhaps my noble friend could tell us how many appeals have been lodged since 2nd October. Given the Government's long-standing and very welcome commitment to these appeal rights, I find it difficult to understand why they cannot see their way to covering such costs out of the additional money allocated to immigration control by the Comprehensive Spending Review.
	Secondly, the Government have abandoned their attachment to the notion of a self-financing regime in another area of new immigration policy; namely, and again this is very welcome, the regulation of immigration advisers by the newly-established Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner. In January 1998, the Government's consultation paper stated that the scheme would have to be,
	"fully self-financing, for both its start up and continuing costs".
	However, it is now clear that the great majority of the advisers covered by the scheme will be exempted from the registration fee and that, as a result, the total income from registration fees will cover only a very small proportion of the commissioner's total operating costs.
	In such circumstances, I can see no reason why the Immigration Appellate Authority should pass on even a proportion of its costs to family visitor appellants and I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government may yet be willing to reconsider their approach to these appeals. I beg to move.
	Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations laid before the House on 13th September be annulled (S.I. 2000/2446).--(Lord Judd.)

Earl Russell: My Lords, I can confirm what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about the anger felt in 1993 at the withdrawal of the right of appeal for visitors' visas. I was in my place on this Bench. I still hear, ringing in my ears, the voice of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, exclaiming, "My brother will be subject to this Bill". She went into the Opposition Lobby and a group of around half a dozen Conservative Peers followed her.
	I was standing next to her in the Lobby when the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, coming late into the Division and inadequately briefed, saw a group of Conservatives and followed them into the Lobby. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, who is an honourable lady, explained to the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher: "I am sorry, Lady Thatcher. This is not the Conservative Lobby". That is one of my very favourite memories of 12 years in this House.
	The manifesto commitment to restore the right of appeal was welcome. But I am afraid that these regulations can be described only as a partial fulfilment of that commitment. Noble Lords will note that Regulation 4 requires that the money--£500 for an oral hearing or £180 for an appeal on the papers--must be paid on the spot, in the local currency, immediately before the appeal can even be lodged. I ask those of your Lordships who went away on holiday this summer: how many stepped out of the aeroplane with £500-worth of the local currency in their pocket? I can be quite sure that I did not.
	If one is coming over as a family visitor to attend a life event such as a wedding or a funeral--if it is not improper to describe a funeral as a "life" event--then it matters that the appeal should be heard quickly. The process, even if it can be done, of raising £500 in the local currency, will take time. Indeed, there will be a good many people who will not be able to do it. Not everyone who wants to visit a family member in this country has an annual income of £500.
	The Government are bound, under the judgment in ex parte Witham, to waive or reduce fees for those who are of limited means. I am sure that the Minister will remind us of that obligation and he will urge that it is to be pleaded against a great deal of what we say. However, to do this, one has to find a firm which is approved by the Legal Services Commission. One must contact with that firm, advise it and lodge the appeal within 28 days. Perhaps I may ask the Minister: how many people in Chittagong possess a copy of the list of firms approved by the Legal Services Commission? I reassure the Minister that I do not expect him to answer that question. But if he does not answer it, he will have conceded one of my major points; namely, he will have conceded that the application of ex parte Witham will be extremely difficult, if not impossible.
	I should like to ask the Minister one other practical question. If several relatives, coming together to attend the same event, all appeal, is the fee to be paid for one appeal or severally for several relatives? I hope that the answer will be that it is to be paid for one appeal. However, if I can be given the answer to that question, I shall be extremely grateful.
	My next concern relates to Regulation 2(2), which provides lists of eligible relatives. This represents what I have described in many other contexts as an entirely misguided method of drafting legislation; namely, the method of proceeding by total enumeration of individual categories. When that list is found to be inadequate, it is equivalent to opening the stable door after the horse has bolted. More regulations have to be brought in to introduce more categories. It is much better to use the recommendation of the Renton report on the preparation of legislation and to state a general principle which can then be applied by a court to the no doubt peculiar facts of any individual case.
	The Immigration Law Practitioners Association has tried to do this. It has suggested a formula of,
	"related by blood or marriage or by a relationship akin to marriage".
	It seems to me that that would be applicable.
	But it would apply to all the innumerable hard cases which the drafting of Regulation 2(2) will throw up. To begin with, although it is to be welcomed that it includes an unmarried partner, it does not specify the children of an unmarried partner by a previous union. Of course, within the fact of mortality there must be many such cases. It does not mention the spouse of a nephew or niece. A nephew or niece who wishes to attend a family wedding and is told that they cannot bring their spouse with them will feel what I would regard as a very natural sense of grievance. It is not clear whether adoptive parents are treated as parents. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify that point.
	It is sometimes supposed that this difficulty in enumerating family relationships is somehow to be taken less seriously because it applies only to the extended family patterns of other countries or to the somewhat disorderly patterns of families of the 20th century. That is not so. I am at present working on an entry for the Dictionary of National Biography of a 17th-century parliamentarian of some standing. His inner family circle included the nephew of his father's first wife. I should say that his descent was from his father's second wife. It also included his niece's husband. In the next generation there is even a close family relationship with the great nephew of the grandfather's first wife. That is a family relationship, even though I have left out what are perhaps the most material words, which in that case are "Bencher of the Middle Temple".
	It goes to show that family relationships may be a great deal more varied than we realise. If the Government do not understand that, they are pickling more rods for their own back than they realise.
	We are told--and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has reminded us--that the Government claim that there is no new money. The noble Lord has given one reason why that is not so; I shall give another. In the first year of this Government, when they set out to follow the previous Conservative government's spending limit, they tried so hard that they achieved an undershoot of £3 billion. The Treasury, with consummate brilliance, wrote that £3 billion into the permanent public spending totals on which future increases were to be based. The Government did not need to let the Treasury do that. Within that £3 billion was plenty of money to finance the £10 million that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is moderately asking for.
	When we used to have a right of appeal, the rate of success was between 50 and 60 per cent. It is perfectly possible that half of those will be denied an effective right of appeal by these new regulations. That is an awful lot of injustice. It will apply most severely to visitors from the Indian sub-continent--India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. I wonder whether it would have been applied if these regulations dealt with the category of people who are most numerous in the United States and Canada. I wish I did not have to ask that question. I hope that the Minister can tell me that he will withdraw the regulations and that I can forget about it in future.

Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for bringing this matter before the House. I am greatly inhibited whenever I hear the noble Earl, Lord Russell, speak on these matters. He has expressed much more eloquently than I could have what I wish to say. However, for posterity's sake, I shall persist in repetition. I hope that one day the noble Earl will quote what I have said in one of his speeches.
	I wish to make a brief intervention in this important debate which, as the noble Earl said, particularly affects so many British Bangladeshis, Indians and Pakistanis as well others who are settled here but have relatives living abroad.
	I wish to acknowledge the good work of the CRE, the Immigration Advisory Service, the National Assembly Against Racism, JCWI, the CAB, ILPA and so on. It is very important that they have persisted when many of us had taken our eyes off the ball to do other things.
	I also pay tribute to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the Government for having recognised the great distress which was caused by the previous Conservative government when, in 1993, they removed the right of appeal for refused visitors. The refusal, without redress, of entry clearance for relatives of British citizens to come to the UK for important family events made many feel that they were second-class citizens in their own country.
	That concern was expressed in the annual reports of Dame Elizabeth Anson, the independent monitor of refusals that did not carry a right of appeal. Consequently, there was a manifesto commitment to reintroduce a right of appeal, and that was honoured in the legislation introduced last year by the Government.
	I accept also that the definition in the regulations of a family relationship which gives the right of appeal in the event of refusal of entry clearance is sufficiently wide to cover most relatives, although not those of partners who are not married and others mentioned by noble Lords. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why this should be so in these welcome days of non-discrimination in the post-Lawrence era.
	Yet, sadly, I have to speak of discrimination in the prescription of fees for those wishing to exercise their statutory right of appeal. There was, of course, no mention of fees being charged in our manifesto commitment. Had the opposition party called for this, I think our side would have called "foul". Labour's policy handbook published in October 1996 stated:
	"We will recognise that families need to be together for key life events like weddings, births and funerals. At present those refused a visitor's visa for events like these no longer have the right of appeal against the decision. We will restore that right of appeal".
	These fees will deter many people from exercising the right of appeal that the Labour Government quite properly restored. It is small consolation that the fee will be refunded if the appeal is successful. If it cannot be paid in the first instance, what is the point? Some £500 for an oral hearing will have to be paid in local currency at the British post overseas before a person is able to exercise the right of appeal. This is against a fee of £33 for the visa itself. The measure is financially discriminatory against those of modest means. I suspect that the idea of financial bonds for visitors was dropped precisely for these reasons.
	The Parliamentary Secretary in the Lord Chancellor's Department, Mr David Lock, MP, stated in a letter dated 14th September that,
	"the appellant may qualify for representation funded by the Legal Services Commission".
	This would mean having to send out forms to appellants overseas. Sponsors in the UK are hardly likely to be eligible for legal aid if they are able to meet the Immigration Rules requirements to ensure that the visitor is not reliant on additional public funds. Moreover, it is not realistic to expect legal aid to be arranged in the short time-span envisaged for the hearing of such appeals.
	What troubles many of us is that, if both the Home Office and the FCO have agreed to waive any extra costs for administering this new right of appeal, why cannot the Lord Chancellor's Department do the same? When new rights of appeal have been introduced in the past there has been no requirement to pay court fees; so why now? If their estimate is correct, that of the 19,500 such appeals a year some 80 per cent will be reviewed on the basis of the papers alone, without an oral hearing taking place, the costs will be minimal in comparison with the whole. The 20 per cent of cases in which there are full oral hearings represent some 3,900 appeals, as against the Immigration Appellate Authority's estimate of 57,900 disposals of completed appeals of all types in a full year.
	Never before have the costs of the hearing of a statutory right of appeal in an immigration case been required of a potential appellant before the exercise of that right. Even if all the appeals were unsuccessful and no fees were repayable as a result, the total revenue would be no more than £3.5 million. This Government are not subject to excessive financial restraint.
	It is clear to all of us, and it must therefore be clear to the Government, that those who are most likely to exercise this right of appeal are relatives from the Indian sub-continent. That is why I raise this point. In those circumstances, the measure appears to be indirectly racially discriminatory against persons from certain parts of the world. I find that unacceptable. How does the measure square with the welcome insistence of the Government on access to justice? It can surely only deny people that access.
	In denying access to the right of appeal, will these provisions stand the test of Article 6 of the ECHR? It is argued that court fees are payable in the civil courts. But we are not dealing with the civil courts; we are talking about the Immigration Appellate Authority, which was set up as part of the tribunal system 30 years ago following the Wilson committee recommendations recognising that the right of appeal is especially important when dealing with the exercise of authority by the Secretary of State. That distinguishes it from many other tribunals. Moreover, other fees, such as they are, do not in any way match the magnitude and effect of the fees in the regulations.
	Is it claimed that family visits are less important than other matters for which entry clearance is required and which carry a right of appeal in the event of refusal, such as the right of appeal for those on working holidays? A visit by elderly relatives who have never seen their grandchildren or their home and school--and which may take place only once before their death--cannot be equated with the visits of working holidaymakers, yet the latter do not have to pay court fees.
	Finally, I am concerned about the precedent that is set by the regulations. Will it mean that the Lord Chancellor's Department will wish to start charging fees for other appeals--for example, those regarding family settlement? That would be a retrograde step. It raises further fears among communities, which would appear to be justified if this approach continues.
	In my humble opinion, there seems to be no moral, let alone any other justification for these fees. That is why there is widespread dismay and anger among the British resident ethnic minority communities. Rightly, they have a strong feeling of betrayal. One questions whether it is really worth antagonising so many of our citizens with this measure.
	In the interests of the values that have guided this Government in the past, as now--caring for those with limited resources, access to justice for all, non-discrimination against the minority communities and their relatives, social inclusion and, more importantly, the right to family life--I urge them to withdraw these fees and, in so doing, restore people's faith in their intentions towards the ethnic minority communities.

Lord Newton of Braintree: My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in this important debate. I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness in passing that I share her feelings about following the noble Earl, Lord Russell, whose erudition and eloquence I have struggled to match since we first took part in debates together some 40 years ago.
	I should mention that I am currently chairman of the Council on Tribunals. It is a role in which I have had the privilege of succeeding the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, who has made so many distinguished contributions to the proceedings of this House in that and in many other capacities.
	It will come as no surprise, indeed it will not be news, to the House that the Council on Tribunals has consistently expressed general concern about people being charged fees for exercising rights of appeal. In this case, I can perhaps most easily summarise its position by simply quoting from paragraph 1.27 of its annual report for 1998-99, which states:
	"We welcomed the restoration of a right of appeal for family visitors but were disappointed that it was still proposed to charge a fee in connection with such appeals, albeit that the fee would be refundable if the appeal were successful. The fee could make it difficult for some people to contemplate launching an appeal, and we believe that there may be human rights implications".
	The council is in the habit of choosing muted and measured language, but the flavour of concern in that paragraph is clear.
	The council was not consulted on the detail of the regulations that are before the House. That is not a complaint; I merely want to place it on record. Had it been consulted, I have little doubt that it would have chosen to reiterate the concern it had expressed earlier. I acknowledge that this is speculation, because the council has not discussed this matter recently, but it might have wanted to express particular anxiety about the apparent scale of the additional deterrent to oral hearings; that is to say, hearings where the appellant or his relatives can be heard and seen in person, bearing in mind the excellent point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that it is credibility that is at issue in so many of these cases.
	The council might also have wished to refer again to a statement at the end of the passage that I quoted about the human rights implications, particularly now that the Human Rights Act has come into effect. I have no doubt that the Government have given consideration to this matter, but it seems especially relevant in the light of what has been said by other noble Lords about the problems that could arise where an appellant has very limited means.
	I shall confine myself to the muted and measured language that the council used in its report and is accustomed to employing. I simply say that I look forward to listening with care to the Minister's comments on the important points that have been made in this debate.

Lord Weatherill: My Lords, this has been a week of long nights, even early mornings, and I shall not detain your Lordships for long--least of all the Minister, who has had a heavy week.
	I participate in this debate because, for some 28 years, I represented the constituency of Croydon North East. It is often overlooked that, for about 100 years from 1740, the twin college of the honourable East India Company was in Addiscombe, which was in the heart of my constituency. We therefore had a close association with the Indian sub-continent for many decades. As noble Lords may know, I had the privilege of serving with Indian troops in the last war. I think that I can reasonably claim to have secured my seat in Croydon North East as a result of my declining command of Urdu. I beg your Lordships not to put me to the test tonight. The one phrase that I retained over the years was "Such bolo?"--"Are you telling me the truth?".
	I know from personal knowledge about the importance of family to members of the Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities. I know that they were deeply wounded and upset when the visa appeal system was abolished in 1993. I also know that they were much encouraged when the present Government, in their 1997 manifesto, announced that they would reassess the situation. It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves of what was said on that occasion. The Labour Party's priorities would be to,
	"extend our commitment to the family to our immigration and asylum procedures. It is in no one's interest that close family members are divided by arbitrary and unjust regulations ... [and to] recognise that families need to be together for key life events like weddings, births and funerals. At present those refused a visitor's visa for events like these no longer have the right to appeal against the decision. We will restore that right".
	However, people were not told that the cost would be £500 for an oral appeal or £150 for a written appeal. I suspect that many of those people probably changed their allegiance to vote for the present Government as a result of that commitment. From my personal knowledge, I have to tell noble Lords that they feel let down, misled and even angry.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and others, have said, these charges will deter all but the wealthy visa applicants. I am well aware that the Government claim that there is no new money. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, they have, as a result of good housekeeping, a pot of gold from which they could easily find the £10 million that has been mentioned. I hope, therefore, that the Government will listen to what so many speakers have said tonight, and will no doubt say when I have sat down. If it is not possible to abolish these exorbitant fees totally--although that would be ideal--the Government could at least reduce them, so that the poorest members of our society are not deterred. They are the people, not the wealthiest, who deserve our consideration and our protection.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Judd was quite right to start by acknowledging that the Government deserve credit for restoring the right of appeal that was taken away by the Conservative administration in 1993. I was not a Member of your Lordships' House at the time that the 1999 Act was started, at least in its earlier stages. But, looking back, I note that my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn said, when moving the Second Reading of the Bill, that the previous government had removed that right by the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. He went on to say:
	"We think that that was wrong. The measure in the 1993 Act caused great resentment in ethnic minority communities who had relatives living abroad who wished to visit their family here, and Part IV puts that right".--[Official Report, 29/6/99; col. 179.]
	I am sure that that is a commitment--a pledge--that the Government want to redeem. My noble friend Lord Judd does the Government a great service by having provided this opportunity for them to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, my noble friend Lady Uddin and, indeed, the noble Lords, Lord Newton and Lord Weatherill, how the regulation in this form threatens to create the very resentment that the Government rightly sought to remove.
	Two strands have permeated the remarks that have already been made, both of which are important. One of them is the question of cost; the other is the definition of "family". As regards cost, surely it is important that costs should not be a barrier to justice. I am sure that that is what the Government want to avoid. The sums involved are substantial. They may be substantial for someone living on a modest income in this country, but they will be even more so for someone living in circumstances where wages are that much lower.
	The noble Earl referred to the Witham case in which, as noble Lords will recall, the question arose as to whether or not regulations dealing with fees in civil courts were lawful. On that occasion, the Divisional Court struck down those regulations because they did not even provide for any remission on the grounds of hardship. It has to be said that I do not find even that exception in these regulations. When he replies, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to explain that and give us some reassurance. In giving the judgment on that case, Mr Justice Laws said, in stark and clear terms:
	"Access to the courts is a constitutional right; it can only be denied by the government if it persuades Parliament to pass legislation which specifically--in effect by express provision--permits the executive to turn people away from the court door".
	The concern in that case was in relation to courts and court fees. I recognise that it may be said that there are differences between a right of appeal to a tribunal or an adjudicator and a court right of appeal. But I do not regard that as an attractive argument. The fundamental point remains the same; namely, that the Government wanted to give back a right that had been taken away and, therefore, it is right that the opportunity has been taken to hear how concerned people are about whether that is what these regulations will achieve.
	The point in relation to the definition of "family" is also important. The noble Earl rightly said that there are two ways of dealing with this matter. By way of example, the Human Rights Act takes the non-enumerative approach to what is a public authority. As I understand it, the fact that the definition of "family" is too limited may be a further cause for resentment in communities where the family is extended in a way that may not fit neatly into the definition provided in the regulations.
	This is an important step. It is equally important that people should be confident that the right of appeal has effectively been returned to them. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to provide some reassurance that the arguments put forward tonight will be taken into account and addressed.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I was very much tempted to deliver my contribution in Urdu for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. However, I do not think that the Hansard writer would appreciate it. I shall, therefore, continue in my usual way.
	Perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for raising this most important issue. The one thing that has emerged very clearly from this debate is the sheer anger of people regarding the way that this particular measure has been introduced. But at the root of this is something that one has to understand: it is effectively creating a culture that says, "We don't believe you when you apply for entry clearance or a visa. If you disagree, you can appeal. But, if you appeal, you will have to find the money". In effect, we are creating a culture that refuses to believe that a large number of people may wish to come to this country as visitors. That is what is behind it.
	Those of us who have for the past 30 or 35 years dealt with immigration cases in this country can tell the Minister that there is an insatiable appetite on the part of entry clearance officers to question people from ethnic minorities and to put very little faith in the answers given. The result is the number of appeals about which we are talking. But even that process will be denied to many.
	My noble friend Lord Russell started his remarks with an anecdote, so perhaps I may also add mine. At one time, I was involved in the investigation of the immigration control procedures while working for the Commission for Racial Equality. As part of that formal investigation, we were entitled to examine files at British posts abroad. Some of the comments in the files made it absolutely clear that no one would obtain justice, no matter what they tried to do. I do not blame the present Government for that. That occurred in the late '80s.
	I refer to a case that occurred in the early days of the entry clearance procedures. We should remember that young people who wanted to come to this country were subjected to questioning. Two young brothers applied to the British consulate in Islamabad for entry clearance. They were given two separate dates for interview. The entry clearance officer gave the elder brother entry clearance and stamped his passport accordingly. At that time all kinds of questions were asked. A few weeks later the younger brother went to the consulate to apply for entry clearance. He was asked the same questions but his answers revealed a discrepancy. The elder brother was asked how many chickens his family kept in their yard. He replied that they kept eight. However, the younger brother said that they had seven. The entry clearance officer did not give the younger brother entry clearance because of that discrepancy until someone explained that the family were so overjoyed to hear of the elder brother's entry clearance that they had slaughtered one of their chickens to celebrate.
	That incident says something about the culture that has evolved in this area and the damage that such a culture can cause. I could mention case after case to illustrate the point. I have served in this country as a Justice of the Peace and as a member of a board of visitors. I have taken up cases where entry clearance officers have refused to grant visas to people. My pronouncements as a Justice of the Peace and as a person who has adjudicated on prisoners' complaints are accepted, but entry clearance officers were not prepared to accept my assurances on the genuineness of people's applications.
	The culture that emanates from decisions of this nature can be extremely harmful. I ask the Minister to study the report of the Commission for Racial Equality, which contains 54 major recommendations. It will tell him a hell of a lot about how the system works with regard to those from ethnic minorities. We are talking about people who want to exercise a right. How often are people in this country reluctant to pursue a legal right because they do not have the resources to do so? Even if we have the resources, we may be reluctant to spend that money when we do not know the final outcome of our action, irrespective of the strength of our case.
	The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, was right to mention the Labour Party manifesto. Given that a general election will be called in a year or so, what will those who will campaign for the Labour Party tell members of ethnic minorities with regard to the right we are discussing? The point at issue is that fee payments discriminate against poorer people--in this case, people from the Indian sub-continent. There is a deep-rooted suspicion that the Government are indirectly sending out a message that they are not happy with the introduction of an appeals mechanism. That is a shame, because if there is one thing in which this country can take extreme pride it is the machinery--unlike that of any other country in the world--which gives people the right to appeal against a decision which they feel is unjust. Why, then, do the Government want to impose the kind of restriction that may result in people losing that right?
	I mention one of the most frightening aspects of the proposal. The Government grant aid to the Immigration Advisory Service. That body makes representations on behalf of people who wish to appeal against decisions of entry clearance or immigration officers. Over 50 per cent of the appeals that have been pursued by the Immigration Advisory Service have been successful. If that is the rate at which people's initial applications have been refused, there must be something wrong with the system. In the case of the 50 per cent of appeals that are pursued by the Immigration Advisory Service, the people concerned have had to fork out money to exercise their right to have their appeal heard. To my mind that cannot be right.
	We are not talking about flooding the country with primary immigrants. We are not even talking about asylum and refugees. We are talking about people who want to visit this country, perhaps to attend a funeral or a wedding or to participate in religious activities. We are creating a system whereby we put obstacles in the way of those people. If the procedure is to take three, four or five weeks, no one will apply for visitor clearance to attend a funeral or a wedding as the ceremony will be over long before they get clearance. We are creating a system that penalises people who try to exercise their rights. If this was a matter of primary immigration, I could understand that objections would be raised. However, we are talking about the right of an individual to pursue an application which he or she feels has been unjustly dealt with. I find it difficult to understand how the Labour Party could have produced this proposal.
	I remember the late night discussions on the then Immigration and Asylum Bill when the Government advocated a bond scheme. I remember the complaints about the detrimental effect that such a scheme could have on poor people or people from ethnic minorities. The Government did not listen. They said, no, they believed that it would work to the advantage of people from ethnic minorities. After sheer pressure from ethnic minorities the Government had to reconsider that policy.
	My advice to the Minister is this. For the sake of £3.2 million--that is overall the revenue the Government would receive--and when considering the harassment that would be caused, remember that one is asking people to pay money which is equivalent in many cases to a year's salary or wages in order to appeal against a decision. How can anyone justify such a decision?
	I am conscious of the time. I suggest that it may be appropriate for the Minister to consider the issue and to admit that the Government are mistaken in what they have done.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am sure that the whole House--that is, the whole House except perhaps the Minister, for whom we may all have sympathy on this occasion--is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for bringing the matter before us today
	The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has demonstrated the hollowness of the Government's manifesto commitment in 1997. They may have followed the letter of their promise but, as has become very clear in the course of the debate, they have made it meaningless in practice for most of the people concerned. For those involved, this is immigration for the rich--or visits for the rich. If the family budget can afford to risk an extra £500 for the family wedding, funeral, or whatever the occasion is, then welcome to Britain: if not, forget it.
	I remember in another place the difficulties of the Bill in 1993. But I can also guess the reason for this policy. Jack Straw wanted to put it in the manifesto, but it was not cleared by Gordon Brown, so would-be visitors must pay in advance and in 28 days. Therefore, of course, there will not be many appeals. In effect, for most of the people involved, this Government have the same policy as the former government but they try to pretend that it is different. This debate has shown up that pretence.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Cope, might believe, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for providing us with the opportunity to debate these regulations. I always think that it is right that government should be obliged to explain themselves. This debate provides the perfect opportunity to do that. It has been a distinguished debate, with contributions from many distinguished Members of your Lordships' House. I have taken careful note of all the contributions.
	The regulations deal with two questions: first, the definition of a family visitor; and, secondly, the fees to be charged to deal with the administration of an appeal in the event that the application for a visa is unsuccessful. It may be helpful if I explain in broad terms how we expect the system to work. Since 2nd October, people who have been refused a visa to visit members of their family in the United Kingdom have been entitled to a streamlined appeal against the refusal.
	The definition of a family member is set out in Regulation 2(2) of the Immigration Appeals (Family Visitor) (No. 2) Regulations 2000. It is widely drawn and includes stepfamily, adoptive relatives and unmarried couples. If I needed reminding, today has made it patently clear that there has been some disquiet about this definition on the basis that it will exclude some people who could be construed to be "family members". But the whole point of this procedure is to ensure that applications are dealt with quickly and the genuineness of the relationship must be able to be assessed without undue delay. The more distant the relationship to the sponsor, the more difficult it is to assess the genuineness of that relationship quickly. Documentary evidence may not be easily available or may have to be obtained from a variety of sources in order to piece together the family tree. Entry clearance officers--they have a difficult job to do--will have to make more extensive inquiries in connection with issues of credibility. The definition must be manageable so that we can process the application and the appeal in time for the visit to take place, otherwise there would be little point in having family visitor appeals.
	The fee for administering an appeal in the event of an unsuccessful application has been set at £150.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I respect and understand the pursuit of certainty on which the Minister is engaged, but I ask him to read the Renton report on the preparation of legislation, which explains why the pursuit of certainty in this method is almost always self-defeating. When he has done that, I wonder whether he could ask his department to read it, too.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as always, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his intervention. I shall consider his wise words carefully.
	As I said, the fee for administering an appeal has been set at £150. Some 90 per cent of all short-term visa applications are successful. We are talking about only the small percentage of unsuccessful applications.

Lord Judd: My Lords, that is a broad statistic. Given the ethnic dimensions of the debate, is it not important to say a little more about the breakdown of the 90 per cent and the 10 per cent and where the burdens fall?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as always, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, asks a useful and valuable question. I do not have that information. I have only recently managed to get hold of the statistic that I have just given the House. It shows that most applicants are believed and are successful. We are not saying "no" to visa applications. That needs to be borne in mind, particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, pointed out that historically the operation of entry clearance officers has perhaps been seen as racist.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I did not use that word. I never accused anybody of being racist.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I take that point, but that was the implication of the noble Lord's observation.
	I wanted to make it clear that most visa applicants are successful. An appellant can usually expect to receive a decision within six weeks of lodging his or her appeal abroad, if the immigration appellate authorities deal with it on papers alone. An oral hearing is available, but, as it could also involve witnesses giving evidence, it will cost appellants £500 and the appeal will take around three weeks longer to deal with. We believe that most appellants will opt for the quicker and less expensive route. Most applicants will want to know as soon as possible whether to proceed with their plans to visit this country, particularly those wanting to visit for an important event such as a family wedding.
	It is also reasonable to suppose that such applicants will apply for entry clearance at least three months in advance. If they do so, there should be plenty of time to deal with any appeal.
	I recognise that many of your Lordships are concerned about the decision to charge for family visitor appeals. We have to explain that decision. For a visitor appeal right to be meaningful, appeals must be processed swiftly. Under the new arrangements, family visitors will get preferential treatment. We think that it is right that they should pay for it.
	However, providing a priority service has associated costs. Family visits do not have the same fundamental importance for those concerned as some other cases have. For example, asylum applicants often claim that their lives are at stake. Those cases make up the majority of appeals before the immigration appellate authorities. We must not allow those appeals to be prejudiced, even for the benefit of others. It is vital that visitor visa appeals pay for themselves to ensure that the new work that the right of appeal creates does not eat into the resources needed to deal with asylum.
	Litigants in most cases in the mainstream civil courts have to pay court fees, which they may recover from the other party if they win the case. The fee will be refunded in all cases when the appeal is allowed. There is no reason for anyone with a good case to be dissuaded on cost grounds. The fees are based on an estimate of the total costs to the immigration appellate authorities of dealing with a projected 19,500 appeals. Those costs include judicial fees and salaries as well as staff costs. The oral fee includes courtroom and interpreter costs, and allows for the fact that the hearing is likely to take significantly longer than the time spent simply on consideration of the papers.
	In almost all cases where a fee is charged for government services, that fee is based on the principle of full-cost recovery. Court fees are no exception. There would be no other rational basis for setting the fee level. Nevertheless, when estimating the cost of a new service such as this, there is considerable room for uncertainty. Following this summer's consultation exercise in which we proposed fees from the middle of the range, we decided to base the fees on the lowest possible estimate.
	As I said, we expect the majority of appeals to be handled on paper because most people will want a decision to be taken as speedily as possible. If the appeal requires an oral hearing, the appellant may qualify for representation funded by the Legal Services Commission. That funding would cover the appeal fee. Those who seek financial help from the commission will have to meet the relevant financial eligibility and merits test.
	All appellants will be eligible to seek the assistance of the Immigration Advisory Service. The services of the IAS are free to all appellants, regardless of their means. They extend to providing representation at appeal hearings, although not to paying the appeal fee. As of May 2000 the cost to the public of providing an Immigration Advisory Service representative was £772.89 per hearing completed.
	All visitors who come to the United Kingdom must meet their travel costs. For those who come from outside Europe, those costs are likely to amount to several hundred pounds. In order to obtain a visa at all, they must show that they are able to meet the costs of their maintenance and accommodation while in the UK.
	In the past, the immigration system has been prone to lengthy delays. We have done much to rehabilitate it, streamline it, and make it more efficient and more effective. Those efforts continue. However, family visitor appeals represent a large amount of new work. Without new funds, the immigration appellate authorities could be overwhelmed and our much-needed reforms jeopardised. Family visitors themselves would have to endure lengthy waiting times which would ruin their plans to visit.
	After a year--I believe this to be an important commitment--we shall review the arrangements and costs and issues such as the definition of what may or may not be a family member. That review period is important. However, for the moment, we have a system that we believe will be not only fair and just, but will work and be sustainable. That must remain the priority.
	During the debate a number of questions were asked, and I shall try to work through some of the important points raised. My noble friend Lord Judd raised the question of indirect discrimination. We do not consider that the fees could or would amount to indirect discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976. First, we are not aware of statistics which show that it would bite disproportionately. I believe that that is an important consideration. Secondly, even if it did bite disproportionately, it would be justifiable. The aim of the fees is not in itself to discriminate; it is to cover the cost of appeals and to allow family visitor appeals to be processed more rapidly. We believe that the level of fees is appropriate to meet that aim.
	My noble friend also asked how a person would cope in terms of obtaining legal advice within 28 days. We expect family visitors to be helped by their sponsors. The relationship with their sponsors in the United Kingdom will be very important. I believe that consular advice will also be available and, where there is a question over whether they can make or lodge the appeal within the 28-day period, the adjudicator can be invited to extend that period. Therefore, there is room for flexibility.
	My noble friend also suggested that fees marked a significant departure in immigration appeals. I can only reply that Parliament intended fees to be charged when it passed the Immigration and Asylum Act. We made that clear at the time, and that was the view of Parliament.
	My noble friend Lord Judd also suggested that this was a new duty to be covered by the Lord Chancellor's Department. The new duty relates to the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill which amends the original Race Relations Act to put the LCD, among others, under a duty not to discriminate. We fully accept that duty.
	My noble friend also asked how many appeals so far have been lodged. We do not yet know how many have been lodged overseas. So far, only one appeal has been received at the Immigration Appellate Authority. But the right of appeal applies only to visas refused on or after October 2nd and the 28-day period for lodging such appeals has only just passed.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the Witham judgment. This judgment concerned fees restricting the right of access to a court. There is no right of access in this country for family visitors, so Witham does not apply.
	The noble Earl also asked how immigration lawyers would be found with LSC contract. It is worth repeating that consular advice would be available. For those with access to new technology, the LSC contract is promoted through its website. I made the point earlier that the sponsor in this country would be well placed to seek information and to guide a relative who is seeking to exercise their right of appeal.
	I have answered the point about adopted relatives; they do fall within the definition of family members (Regulation 22) by virtue of the Adoption Act 1976.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, also asked about appeals and how many appeals one family group should make. We would expect it to be just the one appeal, the outcome of which would decide the case for the other family members.
	My noble friend Lady Uddin cannot be here to hear my answer to her point. I shall try to settle one question that she asked, which was whether it was secondary legislation within the spirit of Article 6 of the ECHR. Article 6 does not give a right of access to the courts in respect of immigration disputes. That has recently been confirmed by a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg.
	We believe that these regulations will be workable. We believe that they are just, fair and proportionate. We think that they do conform--to pick up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Newton--with our human rights obligations. However, it is open to anybody who believes that they do not conform with these, to make an appeal based on the application of the Human Rights Act. Of course that would be a more narrowly confined basis for a case.
	I have listened with great interest to all points raised during this debate. It has been a distinguished one. It is right that these matters be aired now. I have given a commitment, in your Lordships' House, that these regulations will be kept under review. I would also be grateful to any noble Lords who, outside the confines of this debate, would care to raise any particular concerns with me about how the appeals system works. We would find that most helpful and constructive. This debate has been very useful and we shall reflect on the important points and criticisms made of the new system.
	For my part, as a government Minister, I am proud that we have stuck by our manifesto commitment. It was an important one. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that this is a measure which undermines that commitment in any way, shape or form. People will see and understand this as giving effect to that manifesto commitment. It was utterly shameful that the original appeals system was abandoned in the way in which it was. We have done all that we can to right that wrong and much more in the field of race relations. I am proud of that fact too as a Minister.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, both the noble Earl and I raised the question of remission or mitigation in the case of particular hardship. Do I understand from what my noble friend said about the Witham judgment that that is not something which is even to be considered? It did not seem to me that the regulations at present permit that, although it may be that there is some way of achieving it. It may be that my noble friend would prefer to answer that at some other time, and if so I am happy for him to do so, but I wanted to raise that matter.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I can give an answer to your Lordships this evening. The noble Lord's understanding of the regulations and the legislation is accurate. The provision does not permit remission of the fees in those circumstances. I gave a commitment that we shall be reviewing the fee levels within the next year. Perhaps that is an issue that we should also take into account as part of that review.

Lord Judd: My Lords, first, I repeat how much I appreciate the fact that the Minister, with all the pressures that are on his time, has come here tonight and has listened in his characteristically patient way. I thank him also for the very full way--he always does this--in which he has tried to respond to the points made.
	I am extremely grateful to all those who have participated in the debate. My noble friend was right to say that there have been speeches of distinction and significance. I am sure that he will have noticed that not a single speech was in support of the present situation. Every single speech from all parts of the House questioned the present situation.
	Anger has been referred to, and it is important to notice that it has been anger not only on the part of the communities who were told that they were to have this right of appeal and then found this financial barrier to what they believed was their right but on the part of the people working with them in this country. It is significant that more than 1,000 of the people working in the citizens advice bureaux attended their annual general meeting and voted unanimously against the policy because of what they are encountering in the work that they are doing in the front line.
	It is terribly important that the Government should listen to what been said in this debate and what we have been trying to represent as the feeling outside this House. I hope that my noble friend will draw this debate to the attention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, because it is important that he should focus on what has been said this evening and what is felt by many of those for whom we have been trying to speak tonight.
	I shall withdraw the Motion. I have heard what my noble friend--and he is a friend--has said about reviewing the situation. He talked about flexibility. I hope that the Government might be more flexible and say that they can conduct the review before the end of the one-year period. I do not see why they must stick rigorously to that. I should hope that the situation could be reviewed much more rapidly than that.
	The point with which I wish to conclude is that I do not doubt my noble friend's deep personal commitment to good race relations. I do not question my noble friend's commitment to his vision of what society should be. And I do not question the Government's commitment either. But we must recognise that if there is rhetorical aspiration and the practical experience of people is not in tune with that rhetorical aspiration, the situation becomes more bitter, not less. Therefore, to make a success of race relations in this country and to make a success of the aspirations which are expressed by the Government it is essential to have effective policies which demonstrate at all levels that when we wish the ends, we also wish the means and are determined to provide them. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
	House adjourned at twenty five minutes before ten o'clock.